BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

VAZHUTHACAUD : THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

PRESENT:

SHRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

SMT. BEENA KUMARI .A : MEMBER

SMT. S.K. SREELA : MEMBER

C.C. No. 109/2008 Filed on 21/05/2008

Dated: 30..11..2010

Complainant:

1. Anilkumari, Kavitha Nivas, Ayanthi, Varkala – P.O., Thiruvananthapuram - 695 141.

2. Anilkumar of ..do.. ..do..

(By Adv. S. Williams)

Opposite parties:

1. The Manager, Emirates Airlines, Terminal – II, Trivandrum International Airport, Trivandrum.

2. M/s. The International Airline of the United Arab Emirates, P.O.Box No. 686, Emirates Sky Cargo Centre, Elevated Office, Dubai Cargo Village, Dubai, United Arab Emirates.

    

(By Adv. Rajiv. A. George)

This O.P having been heard on 30..09..2010, the Forum on 30..11..2010 delivered the following:

ORDER

SHRI.G. SIVAPRASAD, PRESIDENT:

The facts leading to the filing of the complaint are that, 1^st complainant's husband had been working as Machine Operator in United Arab Emirates (UAE), that her husband Shri. Sathyavan Latheesan died in UAE on 18/5/2007, that his dead body was booked with 2^nd opposite party's flight on 22/5/2007 on the undertaking given by the 2^nd opposite party that the body would reach Thiruvananthapuram on 23/5/2007 at 3.30A.M, that 2^nd complainant, the brother of the 1^st complainant accompanied the dead body of Sathyavan Latheesan, that 2^nd complainant purchased the flight ticket in flight No.E.K.522 by paying excess amount as it was very urgent, that the 2^nd complainant boarded the flight with the firm belief that the corpse was accompanying him, when 2^nd complainant arrived at Thiruvananthapuram, he came to know that the corpse had not come in that flight, that the corpse came after a delay of 15 hrs. in another flight of Air India Flight No. 980 on 23/5/2007 at 6.30P.M, that the delay was caused due to high handed oppressive, insulting and imprudent conduct of the opposite parties, that the natural grief, distress, anxiety and mental agony of the complainants, friends and relatives and all those came to the Airport to receive the dead body with Ambulance was beyond explanation and that the delay was caused due to gross negligence, deficiency of service and unfair trade practice of the opposite partis. Hence this complaint to direct opposite parties to pay Rs. 5,00,000/- as compensation for menal agony caused to the complainants.

2. Opposite parties filed version contending inter alia that no grounds of deficiency has been made out, that the claim made by the complainant of Rs.5,00,000/- towards alleged delay in delivery of the coffin by a few hours at Thiruvananthapuram Airport is highly inflated and made without justification, that opposite party had already offered to the complainants a sum of Rs. 15,000/- towards alleged costs of hiring the Ambulance to receive the body and for distress and anxiety that the complainant had to allegedly undergo but the said offer has not been accepted for the reasons best known to the complainant, that no undertaking or assurance was given to the complainants as regards the time schedule of arrival of the coffin at Thiruvananthapuram as falsely alleged and such statements have been made only to garner sympathy of the Forum, that there are several formalities to be undertaken before the carriage of a deceased person is undertaken and is subject to load availability on that particular flight, that no assurance was ever given to the brother of the deceased that the coffin would be placed on the same flight as alleged, that coffin has to be checked in as cargo and is loaded from another section and requires load space in the aircraft for carrying the same, that there being no deliberate delay as alleged and the offer of Rs. 15,000/- was made in a gesture of good will, that complainants are not entitled to Rs. 5,00,000/- as no deliberate act has been done by the opposite parties to cause any delay. Hence opposite parties prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3. The points that arise for consideration are:

1. Whether there has been negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?

    

2. Whether complainants are entitled to compensation, if so, at what quantum?

3. Whether complainants are entitled to get costs?

In support of the complaint, 1^st complainant has filed affidavit as PW1 and has marked Exts. P1 to P8. In rebuttal, opposite parties have not filed affidavit or any documents.

4. Points (i) to (iii) : There is no point in dispute that husband of the 1^st complainant died in UAE on 18/5/2007 and the dead body was booked with 2^nd opposite party's flight on 22/5/2007. It has been the case of the complainants that 2^nd complainant, who is the brother of the 1^st complainant purchased the flight ticket in flight No. E.K. 522 by paying excess amount as it was very urgent. It has also been the case of the complainants that the dead body of Sathyavan Latheesan was booked with 2^nd opposite party on undertaking that the body would reach Thiruvananthapuram on 23/5/2007 at 3.30AM., that the 2^nd complainant boarded the flight with the firm belief that the corpse was accompanying him, but when he arrived at Thiruvananthapuram he came to know that the corpse had not come in that flight. It has been the case of the complainants that the corpse came after a delay of 15 hrs. in another flight of Air India Flight No. 980 on 23/5/2007 at 6.30 P.M. Ext. P1 is the Death Certificate issued by United Arab Emirates, Ministry of Health, Department of Preventive Medicine stating the date of death of Sathyavan Latheesan on 18/5/2007. Ext. P2 is the Certificate issued by Consulate General of India, Dubai dated 21/5/2007. As per Ext. P2 the Consulate General of India has no objection to the carriage of the dead body to India. It is stated in Ext. P2 that Mr. Raghavan Anil Kumar, the holder of Indian Passport No. Z 1385127 issued at Dubai on 27/2/2003 is authorised to take over the dead body. Ext. P3 is the Certificate issued by Department of Health and Medical Services dated 22 May, 2007 showing Death Certificate particulars, Empalming particulars. Ext. P4 is the Electronic Ticket, Passenger Itinerary/Receipt issued in the name of Raghavan Anilkumar. As per Ext. P4 date of issue: 21 May, 2007, Electronic Ticket No:1765989943439: Flight is from Dubai to Thiruvananthapuram. Ext. P5 is the Air Way bill issued by Emirates. Shipper's name : Raghavan Anil Kumar, Consignee's name : Raghavan Anil Kumar, handling information : Human coffin marked and addressed D/F 172335, original documents with Pax escorting on Board Mr. Raghavan Anil Kumar, Ticket No. 176 5989943439, gross weight : 121kg. In the column of nature and quantity of goods it is written as Human remains late of Mr. Sathyavan Latheesan, total amount charged: Rs. 3,582/-. Ext. P6 is the Certificate issued by Asstt. Commissioner of Customs, Air Customs, International Airport, Thiruvananthapuram stating that the Hum of Late Sathyavan Latheesan received on flight A1 980 dated 23/5/2007 from Dubai under AWB No. 176 68202654. Ext. P7 is the copy of reply notice addressed to the counsel of complainants stating that the coffin was transferred to Air India Flight on the same day and the coffin arrived at Thiruvananthapuram on May 23, 2007 at 6.30 P.M. Ext. P8 is the Mathrubhoomi Daily dated 24/05/2007. The very case of the complainant is that 2^nd complainant boarded the flight with the firm belief that the corpse was accompanying him and the same would reach Thiruvananthapuram on 23/5/2007 at 3.30AM., when he arrived at Thiruvananthapuram he came to know that the corpse had not come in that flight. According to complainants the corpse came after a delay of 15 hrs. in another flight of Air India Flight No. 980 on 23/5/2007 at 6.30 PM. The complainants' argument is supported by Exts. P4 & P5. Ext. P4 is the Electronic Ticket issued by Emirates Airline wherein Ticket Number mentioned is 176 5989943439, the date of flight is 22 May, departure 2155 from Delhi to Thiruvananthapuram and Flight No. 522, the name of the passenger is Raghavan/Anil Kumar. As per Ext. P5 Airway bill issued by Emirates, it is seen stated in handling information column that Human coffin markd and addrd D/F 172335, 3 sets copies attd original docs with Pax escorting on Board Mr. Raghavan Anil Kumar. P Ticket No.176 5989943439. From Exts. P4 & P5 it is crystal clear that Mr. Anil Kumar boarded the flight with the firm belief that the corpse was accompanying him. It has been the case of the complainants that the corpse was not accompanied him due to grave deficiency of service and unfair trade practice of the opposite parties. There is no point in dispute that the coffin arrived at Thiruvananthapuram on 23 May, 2007 at 6.30 P.M. According to complainant the coffin arrived after a delay of 15 hrs of his arrival. The action of the opposite parties would definitely amount to deficiency in service. It should be kept in mind that the natural grief, distress, anxiety and mental agony of the complainants, friends and relatives and all those came to the Airport to receive the dead body with Ambulance was beyond explanation. The action of the opposite parties may on account of it make out a case of grossest kind of deficiency in service. In Ghaziabad Development Authority Vs. Balbir Sing, II(2004) CPJ 12 (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has widened the connotation of the word compensation appearing Consumer Protection Act to such an extent that it takes in its fold each and every element which one suffers on account of offence mentioned in Consumer Protection Act namely deficiency in service, sale of defective goods, restrictive trade practices, unfair trade practice etc. The observations made in this regard need to be quoted in full. These are under: "The word compensation is of very wide connotation. It may constitute actual loss or expected loss and may extend to compensation for physical, mental or even emotional suffering, insult or injury or loss. The provision of the Consumer Protection Act enable a consumer to claim and empower the Commission to redress any injustice done. The Commission or Forum is entitled to award not only value of goods or services but also to compensate a consumer for injustice suffered by him. The Commission/Forum must determine that such sufferance is due to malafide or capricious or oppressive act. It can then determine amount for which the authority is liable to compensate the consumer for his sufferance due to misfeasance in public office by the officers. Such compensation is for indicating the strength of law". As per Ext. P7 reply letter issued by opposite parties it is seen stated that they made all the necessary arrangements and ensured that the coffin arrived at the destination in the shortest possible time. It is further stated in Ext. P7 that opposite parties deny all liability for any delay that was caused, opposite parties sympathize with complainants for the delay in delivery of the coffin by a few hours and keeping in mind the distress and anxiety that complainant had to undergo, the opposite parties are ready and willing to offer to complainants a sum of Rs.15,000/- in full and final settlement without admission of any liability on their part. Complainants never accepted the same. Opposite party has not filed proof affidavit or any documents to substantiate their contentions in the version. Taking the over all situation of the matter and agony, distress and anxiety suffered by the complainants we find that a lumpsum compensation of Rs.50,000/- besides Rs. 2,000/- as cost of litigation would meet the ends of justice.

In the result, complaint is allowed. Opposite parties shall pay the complainants a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards compensation along with a cost of Rs. 2,000/- within 2 months from the date of receipt of this Order. The amount compensated will carry interest at the rate of 12% from the date of filing of the complaint (21/05/2008) if not paid within the aforesaid period.

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 November, 2010.

G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

BEENA KUMARI .A : MEMBER

S.K. SREELA : MEMBER

ad.

C.C.No. 109/2008

APPENDIX

I. Complainants' witness:

PW1 : Anilkumari

II. Complainants' documents:

P1 : Copy of Death Certificate

P2 : " certificate issued by Consulate General of India, Dubai dated 21//5/2007

P3 : Certificate issued by Deptt of Health and Medical Services dated 22/5/2007

P4 : The Electronic Ticket, Passenger Itinerary/RP dated 21/5/2007

P5 : The Airway bill issued by 1^st opposite party

P6 : The certificate issued by Asst. Commissioner of Customs, Air Customs, International Airport, Tvpm.

P7 : The reply notice addressed to the counsel of complainants

P8 : The Mathrubhoomi daily dated 24/5/2007.

III. Opposite parties' witness : NIL

IV. Opposite parties' documents : NIL

PRESIDENT