BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

VAZHUTHACAUD : THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

PRESENT:

SHRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

SMT. BEENA KUMARI .A : MEMBER

SMT. S.K. SREELA : MEMBER

O.P. No. 13/2008 Filed on 28/01/2008

Dated: 31..12..2010

Complainant:

Sreerangan Vinod, Sreedevi, ATRA-118, Near Muncipal Office, Attingal, Thiruvananthapuram.

(By Adv. S. Williams)

Opposite parties:

1. Air India Represented by its Managing Director, Office of Air India, Vellayambalam, Thiruvananthapauram.

    

2. The Managing Director, Air India, Office of Air India, Vellayambalam, Thiruvananthapuram.

(By Adv. R. Jagadish Kumar)

This O.P having been heard on 15..12..2010, the Forum on 31..12..2010 delivered the following:

ORDER

SHRI.G. SIVAPRASAD, PRESIDENT:

The facts leading to the filing of the complaint are that, complainant purchased an Air ticket from opposite parties for his journey from Dubai to Thiruvananthapuram on 14/6/2009, that the flight was scheduled to take off by 12.30 Noon, so as to reach Thiruvananthapuram by 6 PM, that the said flight was delayed by 7 hours to take off from Dubai Airport, during which complainant was a stranded passenger, waiting in the launch of Dubai Airport indefinitely, that complainant is a chronic diabetic patient who must keep strict diet with periodical medication, that he was prevented from taking his usual diet and medicines on time, that he was totally upset and fell sick, that the flight arrived at Thiruvananthapuram by 00.01 on 15/6/2007, that on his arrival at Thiruvananthapuram, opposite parties pressurised the complainant to surrender his boarding pass, that since arrival, complainant straight away went to his Doctor and had his treatment for 5 days for recouping normal health, that opposite parties did not provide any food or drinking water on time during the 7 hours delay, that complainant issued notice to 2^nd opposite party, who replied admitting the delay caused to the flight. Hence this complaint to direct opposite parties to pay Rs. 1,00,000/- with interest @ 12% from 15/6/2007 towards compensation along with cost.

2. Opposite parties filed version contending that complaint is not maintainable, that complainant never informed the opposite parties that he is a diabetic patient, that if opposite parties had notice that the complainant is a diabetic patient, he would have been properly medicated by the opposite parties, that complainant had never developed any chronic diabetic symptoms nor did he fall sick, that complainant never went any Doctor for treatment, that the delay in the flight was due to reasons beyond the control of the opposite parties, that it was technical snag and when the same was rectified the flight immediately to take off. There was no negligence or deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties, that complainant has no cause of action and the relief sought is not payable. Hence opposite party prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3. The points that arise for consideration are:

1. Whether there is negligence or deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?

    

2. Whether complainant is entitled to compensation and cost?

In support of the complaint, complainant has filed affidavit in lieu of chief examination and has marked Exts. P1 to P5. In rebuttal, The District Reservation Manager, Air India Ltd has filed affidavit and has marked Exts. D1 to D3.

4. Points (i) & (ii) : There is no point in dispute that complainant purchased an Air ticket from opposite party for his journey from Dubai to Thiruvananthapuram on 14/6/2007. Ext. P1 is the passenger ticket and baggage check issued by opposite party. As per Ext. P1 journey is from Dubai to Thiruvananthapuram, Flight No: A1 980L date of journey: 14/6/2007 and time of journey: 12.30, ticket was issued on 10^th June, 2007 and place of issue is Dubai. Ext. P2 is the boarding pass. Ext. P3 series show medical prescriptions and laboratory report. On perusal of Ext. P3 series it is seen that complainant has been suffering from Diabetes from 1999 onwards. He was advised to take Insulin from 1999 onwards. Ext. P4 is the copy of the Advocate notice issued to opposite party by the complainant on 24/9/2007 demanding compensation for the stress, strain and inconveniences caused to the complainant during his journey. Ext. P5 is the reply dated 30/10/2007 sent by opposite party to the complainant's counsel. As per Ext. P5 it is reported by opposite party that Flight AI980/14 June 2007 was rescheduled to depart at 1635 LT, that the flight was delayed due late arrival and departed at 1825 LT, that passengers while accepted for flight were handed over an apology letter at the time of check-in and invitation for lunch was incorporated in it, that lunch was served on ground in view of delay, that delay announcement made through Public Address System at Airport and passengers were requested to proceed to food outlets to avail meals, that at no stage passenger, Mr. Vinod approached Air India staff or handling agents for any assistance nor informed of his medical condition and that there is no deficiency in service in this case. Complainant has been cross examined by opposite parties. In his cross examination by the opposite party, complainant has deposed that the flight was scheduled to depart on 14/6/2007 at 12.30 so as to reach Thiruvananthapuram at 6 PM. But the flight reached Thiruvananthapuram at 1 AM on 15/6/2007 after 7 hours from the scheduled time, when asked whether he has enquired about the reason for delay, PW1 deposed that there was strike on the part of opposite parties' staff. Complainant denied the suggestion made by the opposite parties that the flight was delayed due to mechanical trouble. PW1 has further deposed that the said matter was not brought his notice by the opposite parties when a suggestion was made to PW1 that he has not approached the Air India staff for getting treatment from Doctors, PW1 denied the same and added that when he informed about his disease, opposite party said that there was no such arrangement at the Airport. In the version it has been averred by the opposite parties that delay in the flight was due to reasons beyond the control of the opposite parties. It was a technical snag and when the same was rectified the flight immediately took off. Further it is averred in the version and in affidavit that complainant never informed the opposite party that he is a diabetic patient. Admittedly, there was delay in the flight and complainant reached Thiruvananthapuram at 1 AM on 15/6/2007. Opposite party never furnished any material to show that the said delay in the flight was due to technical snag and the same was rectified immediately. The onus is on the part of the opposite parties to show that the flight was delayed due to reasons beyond the control of the opposite parties. Opposite parties never furnished any document to corroborate that aspect. Evidently, by Ext. P3 series complainant was a chronic diabetic patient, he has been under treatment from 1999 onwards. It has been contended by complainant that he was prevented from taking usual medicines on time thereby he was totally upset and fell sick. From the evidence available on records especially from Ext. P3 series that a delay of 7 hours in his journey might have hurt the complainant and he must have been suffered greatly, and there is no material to falsify his statement in the complaint and in affidavit. Further it is alleged by the complainant that opposite parties did not provide any food or drinking water on time and opposite parties were totally unconcerned and negligent towards the complainant and other passengers. Though complainant has raised such an allegation in the complaint and in the affidavit nothing was brought by the opposite parties to counter the said statement nor furnished any material to disclose the food and facilities were provided by them on time. In view of the above, we find there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Taking overall view of the matter and agony suffered by the complainant we view that a lumpsum compensation of Rs. 15,000/- besides Rs. 2,000/- as cost on litigation would meet the ends of justice.

In the result, complaint is allowed. Opposite parties shall pay the complainant a sum of Rs. 15,000/- 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 @ 12% 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 31^st day of December, 2010.

G. SIVAPRASAD,

PRESIDENT.

BEENA KUMARI .A,

MEMBER.

S.K. SREELA,

MEMBER .

ad.

C.C.No.13/2008

APPENDIX

I. Complainant's witness:

PW1 : Sreerangan Vinod

II. Complainant's documents:

P1 : The passenger ticket and baggage check

P2 : The Boarding pass

P3 : Series shows medical prescriptions and laboratory report

P4 : Copy of Advocate notice dated 24/9/2007

P5 : The reply dated 30/10/2007 sent by opposite parties

III. Opposite parties' witness:

DW1 : P. Vijayan Unni

IV. Opposite parties' documents:

D1 : Copy of E-mail

D2 : Conjunction ticket and excess baggage ticket

D3 : Copy of advocate notice.

PRESIDENT