BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

PRESENT

SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

SMT. BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER

SMT. S.K.SREELA : MEMBER

C.C. No. 38/2007 Filed on 08.02.2007

Dated : 16.02.2011

Complainant :

Sahadevan, Thundil Veedu, T.C 23/1352, Melarannoor, Karamana P.O, Thiruvananthapuram.

(By adv. Valsala Sadanandan)

Opposite parties :

1. The Manager, Air India, Air India Building, Air India Road.

    

2. The District Reservation Manager, Air India, Air India Building, Air India Avenue, Thiruvananthapuram.

(By adv. S. Reghukumar)

This O.P having been heard on 20.12.2010, the Forum on 16.02.2011 delivered the following:

ORDER

SMT. BEENAKUMARI.A: MEMBER

Complainant has taken flight ticket No. IX 00924231 from Air India Express for travelling from Muscat to Trivandrum. On 06.01.2006 the complainant was waiting for the flight and was standing in Muscat Airport Counter Que for getting flight. Complainant waited there upto 4 pm. The complainant can understand that the flight already flew to Trivandrum by black marketing the ticket. Hence the complainant has to go to Bombay by flight from Muscat and reached Bombay at 9.30 pm where also there was no flight to Trivandrum. The airport authorities in Bombay as well as in Muscat neglected to help the complainant for getting the flight. The authorities said that they have no knowledge about the time of next flight. While the complainant was waiting there he acquainted with some Keralites and they told the complainant that there will be no flight from Bombay. From this it is clear that the opposite party who has given the ticket has no responsibility over the passengers. This is absolutely deficiency of service. After getting the knowledge about the non-availability of the flight in Bombay he travelled a long distance with luggage and the complainant contacted a travel agency. On 09.01.2006 he got a bus named 'Akbar Travels of India Pvt. Ltd' in Bombay where the complainant had to spend Rs. 1,950/- for taking ticket. The boarding place is “Sahar International Airport”. After 3 days journey the complainant reached Trissur and from their got K.S.R.T.C Bus. The next day complainant reached Trivandrum at 2 pm. While getting into the bus his luggage consisting of some valid articles, purse consisting of Rs. 420/- and copies of Demand Drafts were lost by theft. Complainant alleges that due to the negligent and irresponsible act of the opposite parties the complainant has to bear a huge loss, mental agony and pain. As the act of the opposite party is highly deficiency in service, the complainant claims compensation.

1^st and 2^nd opposite parties in this case filed their written version. Opposite parties admitted that the complainant had booked a ticket for travel from Muscat to Trivandrum. The complainant was denied boarding on the flight due to facts beyond control. They denied the allegation that the flight took off from Muscat to Trivandrum without the complainant due to black marketing of the ticket. They stated that all the passengers who were denied boarding on the flight were given hotel accommodation and subsequently sent to their destination in alternate flights. But the complainant had preferred to travel to Mumbai and not to Trivandrum on his own accord and had agreed to arrange the journey for himself. The election of the road journey to Trivandrum was done by the passenger on his own accord. Hence the passenger had to make his own arrangements for his journey to Trivandrum. This has been confirmed by the opposite parties' staff stationed at Muscat airport who was deputed to arrange alternate flight. The complainant travelled to Mumbai as desired by him over which the opposite parties had no control. The opposite parties stated that it is the complainant who preferred to travel to Mumbai on his own accord and the opposite parties are not responsible for the loss of valuables. The Air India cannot be mulcted with any liability in respect of an alleged loss sustained during the course of a private journey by road elected by him. The opposite parties further stated that the complainant had to avoid these difficulties if he had chosen to stay back in Muscat and taken advantage of the alternate arrangements made by Air India Express for its passengers. Hence they prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.

In this case the complainant has filed proof affidavit and he has been examined as PW1. From his side 4 documents were marked as Exts. P1 to P4. Opposite parties have not adduced any evidence.

Points to be ascertained:

1. Whether there is deficiency in service or unfair trade practice from the side of opposite parties?

2. Whether the complainant is entitled to get the reliefs and costs?

Points (i) & (ii):- It is an admitted fact that the complainant had taken ticket from the opposite parties to travel from Muscat to Trivandrum and the complainant was denied boarding on the flight due to some reason. The opposite parties obtained the ticket fare and issued the ticket to the complainant for travel on 06.01.2006 at 1.50 pm. But the complainant could not travel in that flight. The opposite parties have stated that the reason for that was beyond their control. At the time of cross examination the opposite parties suggested to the complainant that “നിങ്ങള്‍ Muscat airport-ല്‍ എത്തിയപ്പോള്‍ flight over load ആയതുകൊണ്ട് അടുത്ത flight-ല്‍ പോകാമെന്ന് പറഞ്ഞപ്പോള്‍ visa കാലാവധി തീര്‍ന്നതു കൊണ്ട് അവിടെ നില്‍ക്കാന്‍ കൂട്ടാക്കാതെ Bombay- യിലേയ്ക്ക് സ്വന്തം ഇഷ്ടപ്രകാരം തിരിച്ചുവെന്ന് പറയുന്നു”. From this suggestion we find that the reason for denying boarding on the flight was that the flight was over loaded. This reason was not beyond their control. They can control the passengers and number of seats available at the time of issuing ticket. In this case the complainant was not in a condition to stay at Muscat because his visa period ended on that day. For that reasons he could not stay there for alternate flight. In this case complainant has produced 4 documents to prove his contention. Ext. P1 is the copy of ticket. At the time of marking the document the opposite party objected to mark it on the ground that it was a copy, not the original. But the original ticket was there in the case bundle. Ext. P2 is the bus ticket issued by Akbar Travels dated 07.01.2006, the charge is Rs. 1,300/-. Ext. P3 is the copy of notice issued by the complainant to the opposite party dated 17.05.2006. Ext. P4 is the copy of reply notice sent by the opposite party to the complainant dated 29.06.2006. In this reply the opposite party agreed to reimburse an amount of Rs. 1,468/- to the complainant as a gesture of goodwill. In this case the complainant alleges that due to the negligent act of the opposite party he had to travel by bus from Mumbai to Trissur and in that journey he had lost some valuables. Complainant claims that the opposite parties are liable to compensate that loss. But the complainant has not produced any evidence for that loss. From the above mentioned discussions we find that there is deficiency in service from the side of opposite parties. It is the duty of the opposite parties to arrange seat to the passengers in accordance with their ticket which they had issued for consideration. In this case due to the deficient act of the opposite party the complainant had to suffer much mental agony, financial loss and inconvenience. Hence the opposite parties are liable to pay compensation to him. The complaint is allowed.

In the result, the 1^st opposite party is directed to pay Rs. 10,000/- as compensation and Rs. 2,000/- as costs to the complainant. Time for compliance one month from the date of receipt of the order, failing which 9% annual interest shall be paid for the amount.

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 16^th day of February 2011.

BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER

G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

S.K. SREELA : MEMBER

jb

C.C. No. 38/2007

APPENDIX

I COMPLAINANT'S WITNESS :

PW1 - Sahadevan

II COMPLAINANT'S DOCUMENTS :

P1 - Copy of ticket

P2 - Bus ticket issued by Akbar Travels dated 17.01.2006.

P3 - Copy of notice issued by complainant to opposite party

dated 17.05.2006

P4 - Copy of reply notice sent by opposite party to complainant

dated 29.06.2006

III OPPOSITE PARTY'S WITNESS :

NIL

IV OPPOSITE PARTY'S DOCUMENTS :

NIL

PRESIDENT

jb