IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATHANAMTHITTA, Dated this the 12th day of July, 2010. Present : Sri. Jacob Stephen (President). Smt. C. Lathika Bhai (Member) N. Premkumar (Member) C.C. No.148/08 (Filed on 04.10.2008)Between: T.S. Chacko,aged 69 years, Tharuvelimannil House, Ervaiperoor P.O., Pathanamthitta District represented by its Power of Attorney Holder Balachandran, residing at –do-- --do— (By Adv. Anzil Zachariah) .... Complainant. And: 1. The Manager, Etihad Airways, LeMeredien, Business Centre, Maradu, Kochi – 682 304. 2. The Manager, Etihad Airways, Falcon- Chambers, Anna’s Arcade, Spencer Junction, M.G. Road, Thiruvananthapuram – 695 001. 3. Mattathil Travels, Kumbanad represented by its Director. (By Adv. K.M. Alexander) .... Opposite parties. ORDER Smt. C. Lathika Bhai (Member): The complainant has filed this complaint against the opposite parties for himself and for and on behalf of his wife for getting a relief from the Forum. 2. The facts of the complaint is as follows: The complainant a member of Fokana Board and Sabha Council, Marthoma Church and his wife had booked economy class air tickets for their travel from Cochin to New York on April 3rd 2008 from the opposite parties. The first and second opposite parties are the providers of flight services. The third opposite party is the authorised agent of first opposite party. The ticket was confirmed by the opposite parties. On 3rd April 2008, the complainant and his wife reached Cochin International Airport (CIAL) and reported at 2.00 p.m. At that time, the counters of the opposite parties seen closed and at last the complainant had contacted an official of the Airways and explained their predicament. After examining the ticket, the official informed cancellation of said flight. The next flight to said destination was only on 4th April 2008. They were constrained to hire an Innova car to reach home which is 150 Kilometers far from Airport. On the next day, they travelled by same Innova taxi again to Cochin Airport to board flight to New York. Arbitrarily cancelling flights ruined familial and official meetings of complainant. The opposite parties did not give any help to put their difficulty. Due to the cancellation of flight by travelling 600 Kms. within 24 hours affected physical health of complainant and his wife. They suffered great inconveniences and discomfort. It is the boundan duty of the Airways to inform cancellation of flight in advance to make alternative arrangements to the journey. If the delay is at least five hours, passengers are entitled to refund of ticket, free meals, free accommodation etc. There was no offer from the opposite parties for any of the facilities as a gesture of goodwill for the inconveniences caused to the complainant. International rules guarantee compensation for airline passengers who are bumped from flights or whose flights are delayed or cancelled. 3. On 4th April 2008 a complaint was submitted and office of first opposite party at Airport stating all the inconveniences caused to them. On 18th April 2008, the complainant was sent legal notices to the first and second opposite parties. There is no reply from them. On account of the dereliction of duty and negligence and deficiency in service by opposite parties in not informing the cancellation of flight, the complainant suffered financial loss, mental agony and other inconveniences. The opposite parties are liable to compensate the same. Hence the complainant filed this complaint for getting an order for directing the opposite parties to refund the ticket fare along with compensation for the inconveniences sustained to him and for cost. The complainant prays for granting the reliefs. 4. The opposite parties 1 and 2 filed a common version stating the following contentions: These opposite parties have admitted the fact that the complainant had confirmed tickets for their travel on 3rd April, 2008 from Cochin to New York on the carrier of this opposite party. However, due to change in the summer schedule of this opposite party, the flight that the complainant was booked was re-scheduled. The complainant was informed of the change in the flight schedule on March 31, 2008 itself through the India Reservation Call Centre and they were advised of such a change and were given the correct flight no namely flight EY 281, which departed Cochin in the morning. There was no cancellation of flight as alleged by the complainant; it was due to the change in summer schedule. The complainants were informed of the revised schedule and time of departure. The staff of this opposite party informed the complainant that they had the option of travelling to Baharin on Jet Airways and from Bahrain they would connect with the flight of this opposite party to Abhdhabi and onward to New York as per their scheduled plan. The complainant refused to accept this and informed the staff that they would take the flight the next morning and opted to stay with friends who lived close by to the Airport. After that the complainant left the Airport premises and returned back the next day for their flight. This opposite party is not aware of the illness or not aware of the treatment being given to the complainant and his wife. The complainant has not produced any evidence to prove that they were made travel more than 600 Kms. in one day and this affected their health. 5. In the present case, there was neither a delay nor cancellation of the flight, but the same was rescheduled due to change in summer schedule and the complainant was well aware of the same. The complainant is not entitled to free accommodation, free meals or free transportation etc. as alleged in the complaint. All the statements being made by the complainant to defame these opposite parties and to gain sympathy of this Hon’ble Forum. These opposite parties did all that it would be ensure that the complainant arrived at their destination in the shortest possible time. Once the ticket is utilised and travelled on that a refund of the ticket cost cannot be sought. Thus the question of refund of the cost of air ticket does not arise. The complainant is not entitled to get refund of the air ticket utilised. There is no deficiency in service as alleged by the complainant from the part of opposite parties and the complainant is not entitled to any reliefs as claimed for in the complaint. Hence, these opposite parties pray for the dismissal of the complaint with their cost. 6. The third opposite party has not appeared or filed any version. Hence he set exparte and remained as such. 7. On the above pleadings, the following points were raised for consideration: (1) Whether the complaint is maintainable before this Forum? (2) Whether the reliefs sought for in the complaint are allowable? (3) Reliefs and Costs? 8. The evidence in this case consists of the oral evidence of the Power of Attorney Holder of the complainant as PW1 and marked Exts.A1 to A13. For the opposite parties, the authorised representative of the opposite parties adduced oral evidence as DW1 and marked Exts.B1 and B2 series. After closure of the evidence, both sides were heard. 9. The complainants’ case is that they had confirmed tickets for their travel on April 3, 2008 from Cochin to New York on the carrier of the opposite parties. They were reported at about 2 p.m. on April 3rd, then the officials of Airways informed the cancellation of above said flight. The next flight to said destination was only on 4th April, 2008. Due to the cancellation of flight, the complainants have suffered mental agony, financial loss and other inconveniences. There is a gross negligence and deficiency in service by the opposite parties in not informing about the cancellation of flight and for non-arranging facilities of accommodation and other things. Hence the complainant filed this complaint for getting the reliefs as sought for in the complaint. 10. In order to prove the complainant’s case, the Power of Attorney Holder of the complainant adduced oral evidence as PW1 and Exts.A1 to A13 were marked. Ext.A1 is the copy of Power of Attorney in favour of PW1. Exts.A2 and A3 are the boarding passes of complainant and his wife. Ext.A4 is the ticket invoice dated 23.01.2008 issued by Suma Travels, New York. Ext.A5 is the copy of the complaint filed by the complainant before the Airport Office of opposite parties. Ext/A6 is the copy of legal notice sent by the complainant to opposite parties. Ext.A7 and A8 are the acknowledgment cards of Ext.A6. Exts. A9 and A10 are the postal receipts of Ext.A6. Ext.A11 is the reconfirmation slip of air ticket issued by the first and second opposite parties through the third opposite party. Ext.A12 is the visiting card of third opposite party. Ext.A13 is the copy of BSNL directory stating the telephone number of third opposite party. Opposite parties’ counsel has cross-examined PW1. 11. The opposite parties 1 and 2 contended that the complainants were informed of the change in flight schedule of March,2008 itself through the India reservations call centre and were given correct flight No.EY 281. The staff of the opposite parties informed the complainants that they had the option of travelling to Bahrain on Jet Airways and onwards connect with the flights to Abudhabi and New York, that offer was refused by the complainant. These opposite parties were taken all steps to ensure that the complainants reached their final destination in the shortest possible time. The complainants utilised the booked ticket next day, thus the question of refunding the cost of air ticket does not arise. Once the ticket is utilised and travelled, on a refund cannot be sought. There is no deficiency in service from the part of these opposite parties. 12. In order to prove the contentions of opposite parties, the authorised representative of the opposite parties adduced oral evidence as DW1 and Exts.B1 and B2 series were marked. Ext.B1 is the copy of the authorisation executed by the General Manager of the opposite parties in favour of DW1. Ext.B2 is the computer copy of the message sent by the opposite parties call centre. Ext.B2(a) is the entry Nos. 62, 63, 64, 65 and 67 in 5th page of Ext.B2. The complainant’s counsel did not cross-examine DW1. 13. The complainants’ case against the opposite parties that they have purchased two tickets from the third opposite party, the agent of the first opposite party for going USA from Cochin. They had confirmed economy class tickets on 3rd April, 2008 and confirmed the journey. When they reached for reporting at Cochin Airport then the counter of opposite parties at Airport was seen closed. An Airport official after examining the ticket informed them that the flight they booked the ticket was cancelled. According to the complainant, it is the duty of the opposite parties to inform the cancellation of the flight to passengers and provide accommodation and other facilities to the passengers. But they did not do anything. Opposite parties contention is that they have informed the change in flight schedule to the complainant and offered another option to travel New York that day itself and that offer was refused by the opposite parties. Further, the complainant is not entitled to get refund of air ticket utilised. 14. On going through the evidences in this case, Exts.A2 and A3 tickets were issued in the name of the complainant and his wife. The opposite parties have admitted the fact that the complainant had confirmed tickets for their travel on 13.04.2008 from Cochin to New York. Ext.A5, the complaint filed before the officials of opposite parties and Ext.A6 legal notice shows that the complainant had made a claim before the opposite parties for getting compensation for the inconveniences caused to him due to the cancellation of flight. Exts.A5 and A6 were acknowledged by the first opposite party. It is obligatory on the part of the opposite parties or their agent to inform the cancellation of flight to the passengers. By not doing so there is deficiency in service from the part of opposite parties. A passenger is entitled for the loss and injury suffered due to the negligence of opposite parties. They should not be put to any inconvenience or loss due to the mistake of the office. 15. The opposite parties have produced Ext.B2 copy of details of the messages given to the complainant. But on perusal of this details, the entries in Ext.B2(a) does not shows that these messages were given to the complainant by the opposite parties stating the change of schedule of the flight in which the ticket was booked by the complainant. Further the opposite parties have not produced any evidence to show that they have provided any facilities for accommodation or other things in the circumstances of change of schedule of the flight. In the circumstance, the contentions of opposite parties are not sustainable. 16. The complainant had not produced any evidence before the Forum to prove the expenses incurrred due to the cancellation of flight. Even though on a perusal of Ext.A5 complaint filed before the first opposite party, in the last portion of it shows written as “CtXmsSm¸w“ticket copy, taxi receipt etc. DÅS¡w sNbvXpsImÅp¶p Ext.A5 was acknowledged by the opposite parties. It presumes that the taxi receipt was filed before the first opposite party along with the complaint for getting compensation from them. The tickets issued by the opposite parties were used by the complainants. Hence the complainant is not entitled to refund the cost of ticket from the opposite parties. Thus looking into the entire facts and circumstances of the case, some sort of inconveniences and financial losses sustained to the complainant. Considering this, the opposite parties are liable to compensate the same to that extent. In the circumstances, we find a deficiency in service from the part of opposite parties and hence the complainant is entitled to get compensation from opposite parties. Therefore, the complainant’s prayer can be allowed partly. 17. In the result, the complaint is allowed, thereby the complainant is allowed to realise an amount of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five hundred only) as compensation from the opposite parties along with a cost of Rs.1,500/- (Rupees One thousand five hundred only). The opposite parties are directed to pay these amounts within 2 months from the date of receipt of this order, failing which an interest @ 9% per annum will be paid to the complainant till the whole payment. Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 12th day of July, 2010. (Sd/-) C. Lathika Bhai, (Member) Sri. Jacob Stephen (President) : (Sd/-) Sri. N. Premkumar (Member) : (Sd/-) Appendix: Witness examined on the side of the complainant: PW1 : Balachandran. Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant: A1 : Photocopy of the Power of Attorney dated 17.03.2008 executed by the complainant in favour of Balachandran. C.G. A2 & A3: Boarding pass of complainant and his wife. A4 : Itinerary invoice dated 23.01.2008 issued by Suma Travels, New York. A5 : Photoopy of the complaint sent by the complainant to the first opposite party. A6 : Photocopy of legal notice dated 18.08.2008 sent by the complainant to the first and second opposite parties. A7 & A8: Aacknowledgment cards of Ext.A6. Exts. A9 & A10: Postal receipts of Ext.A6. A11 : Reconfirmation slip. A12 : Visiting card of third opposite party. A13 : Photocopy of BSNL directory stating the telephone number of third opposite party. Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties. DW1 : Mukund Desikan. Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite partiesB1 : Authorisation letter dated 06.08.2009 executed by the General Manager, Etihad Airways, Mumbai in favour of Mr. Mukund Desikan. B2 : Computer copy of the message sent by the opposite parties call centre. B2(a) : Entry Nos. 62, 63, 64, 65 and 67 in the 5th page of Ext.B2. (By Order) Senior Superintendent Copy to: (1) Balachandran, Tharuvelimannil House, Ervaiperoor P.O., Pathanamthitta District. (2) The Manager, Etihad Airways, LeMeredien, Business Centre, Maradu, Kochi – 682 304. (3) The Manager, Etihad Airways, Falcon Chambers, Anna’s Arcade, Spencer Junction, M.G. Road,Thiruvananthapuram – 695 001. (4) The Director, Mattathil Travels, Kumbanad (5) The stock file.
| | HONORABLE LathikaBhai, Member | HONORABLE Jacob Stephen, PRESIDENT | HONORABLE N.PremKumar, Member | | 
