IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, ALAPPUZHA
Wednesday the 08thday of March, 2023.
Filed on 05.08.2022
Present
- Sri.S.Santhosh Kumar BSc.,LL.B (President )
- Smt.P.RSholy, B.A.L, LLB (Member)
CC/No.194/2022
between
Complainant:- Opposite parties:-
Sri.K.Sasidharan 1. The Manager
Krishnavilasam Air India Ltd., Gandhi Square
Mattom North DH Road, Kochi-682016
Mavelikara-690103
2. The Manager
Air India, 113, Gurudwara
Rakabganj Road,
New Delhi
(M/s Menon & Pai advocates)
O R D E R
SRI. S.SANTHOSH KUMAR (PRESIDENT)
Complaint filed under Sec.35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
Material averments briefly stated are as follows:-
On 27.04.22 complainant booked an E-ticket in flight No.A1834 of Air India from Cochin to Delhi. During journey a proper seat was not given to the complainant,though it was assured that it will be given at the boarding gate. Opposite party had collected excess amount from the complainant. When the flight arrived at New Delhi at 23.55 complainant contacted the office of the 2nd opposite party but there was nobody to attend the complaint. Without replying properly the phone was disconnected by the 2nd opposite party. Though complainant contacted the customer service there was no proper response. In the help desk there was nobody at the seat. This amounts to deficiency of service from the part of opposite parties.
2. A notice was issued to the Manager, Air India, Cochin seeking compensation. Complainant sustained mental agony due to the reckless attitude of the opposite parties.The ticket amount was Rs.9575/-. Complainant is claiming an amount of Rs.75,000/- as compensation, Rs.9575 being the ticket charges and Rs.25,000/- as litigation expenses. Hence the complaint.
3. Opposite parties filed a joint version mainly contenting as follows:-
The complaint is filed suppressing material facts. It is admitted that on 24.04.22 complainant had booked a ticket for Cochin- Delhi in A1 834 scheduled on 27.04.22 through Air India website by paying an amount of INR 9375. Complainant made a payment of INR 200/- for blocking a preferable seat by issuing EMD (Electronic Miscellaneous Document). On 27.04.22 the actual time of departure of the flight A1 834 was 20.30PM. Before reporting at the check in counter of the said flight complainant had done web check in at 16.55 PM and chose a seat 12H. The seat number was not changed by the staff when the complainant reported at the check-in counter and thereafter he travelled in the seat number 12H. Hence it can be seen that the allegations raised by the complainant is misconceived and bereft of any truth.
4. The averment that on 27.04.2022 opposite parties did not give the complainant a proper seat after issuing the confirmed flight tickets is absolute falsehood. The averment that complainant contacted the office of the 2nd opposite party on reaching the Delhi airport at 23.55 to raise a complaint is false. The averment that there is deficiency of service from the part of these opposite parties is false. Complainant issued a notice to the manager of the opposite parties for compensation. Complainant is trying to extort money from the opposite parties. The flight ticket cost was Rs.9575/- and Rs.200/- was the cost of blocking preferable seat. Complainant is not entitled for any relief and hence the complaint may be dismissed with cost.
5. On the above pleadings following points were raised for consideration:-
- Whether there is any deficiency of service from the part of opposite parties as alleged?
- Whether the complainant is entitled realise an amount of Rs.9575/- being the ticket charge from the opposite parties as prayed for?
- Whether the complainant is entitled realise an amount of Rs.75,000/- as compensation from the opposite parties as prayed for ?
- Reliefs and costs?
6. Evidence in this case consists of the oral evidence of PW1 and Ext.A1 & A2 from the side of the complainant and the oral evidence of RW1 and Ext.B1 to B3 from the side of the opposite parties.
7. Point Nos.1 to 3
PW1 is the complainant. He filed an affidavit in tune with the complaint and marked Ext.A1 &A2.
8. RW1 is the authorised representative of opposite party. He filed an affidavit in tune with the version and marked Ext.B1 to B3.
9. PW1, the complainant booked a ticket through online for flight No.A1 834 scheduled from Cochin – Delhi on 27.04.22 20.30 PM. He paid an amount of Rs.9375/- though on line on 24.04.22 and booked the ticket. He had also paid an amount of Rs.200/- as additional amount preferring a seat. On the day he travelled in the said airline but the allegation of PW1 is that he was not provided a proper seat though Rs.200/- was collected as extra from him. The further allegation is that proper persons were not available to attend the complaint at the help desk and though he tried to contact 2nd opposite party there was no proper response. Hence the complaint is filed seeking return of the ticket amount along with Rs.75,000/- as compensation. Opposite parties filed a version admitting the booking of the ticket and collection of Rs.9375/- being the ticket amount and Rs.200/- for selection of seat. However according to them complainant preferred seat No.12H and he travelled in the same seat and so there was no deficiency of service from their part and so the complaint is only to be dismissed. Complainant got examined as PW1 and marked Ext.A1 and A2. The authorized representative of opposite parties was examined as RW1 on the strength of Ext.B1 authorization letter and Ext.B2 and B3 were marked. Complainant who was appearing in person pointed out that though an additional amount of Rs.200/- was collected from him as selection charges for a seat he was not provided a proper seat and it amounts to deficiency of service. Hence according to him the allegations leveled in the complaint are proved and so he is entitled for favourable order. Per contra the learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties pointed out that as per Ext.B2 he preferred seat No.12H. As per Ext.B3 he travelled in the same seat- 12H and so there is no deficiency of service from their part.
10. Ext.A1 is the legal notice issued by PW1 on 16.07.2022. Ext.A2 is the e-ticket from it is seen that total amount of Rs.9575/- was collected from PW1 including Rs.200/- for seat select. The allegation in the complaint as well as in Ext.A1 legal notice is that he was not given a proper seat. During cross examination PW1 stated that the expression proper seat was used to denote that the seat which he expected was not given to him.According to him he traveled in another seat and not in seat No.12H. Howeversuch an important averment is conspicuously absent in the complaint. In chief examination also it was reiterated that he was not given a proper seat. During the cross examination of RW1 it was put to him that PW1 paid Rs.200/- as extra for a window seat. Admittedly 12H is a middle seat. However the averment regarding window seat is absent in the complaint as well as in the chief affidavit and the only complaint is that he was not given a proper seat. Ext.B2 shows that seat No.12H was allotted to complainant. Ext.B3 shows that he travelled in seat No.12H in the flight No.AI834. So from the documents Ext.B2 and B3 it is pellucid that complainant preferred seat No.12H and he travelled in the same seat. If that is so it is not known what is the grievance of the complainant. If his grievance is that he was not allotted a window seat such an averment is absent in the complaint and the only allegation is that he was not given a proper seat. Ext.B2 and B3 shows that complainant travelled in seat No.12H which was allotted to him. In such circumstances as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties it is seen that the complaint is filed without any valid reason only to harass the opposite parties. Hence complainant is not entitled for any reliefs and so these points are found against him.
11. Point No.4
In the result complaint is dismissed with cost of Rs.5,000/- (Five thousand).
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him corrected by me and pronounced in open Commission on this the 8th day of March,2023.
Sd/-Sri.S.SanthoshKumar (President)
Sd/-Smt.C.K.Lekhamma (Member)
Appendix:-Evidence of the complainant:-
PW1 - Sri.K.Sasidharan (Complainant)
Ext.A1 - Legal notice
Ext.A2 - E-ticket
Evidence of the opposite parties:
RW1 - Sri.VijayShawkar B (Witness)
Ext.B1 - Letter of authorisation
Ext.B2 - Ticket details
Ext.B3 - PNR history of the complainant
///True Copy ///
To
Complainant/Oppo.party/S.F.
By Order
Assistant Registrar
Typed by:- Sa/-
Comp.by:
