Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/729/2014

Navneet Kaur - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Station Manager/AGM Air India Airlines - Opp.Party(s)

In person

06 Apr 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

 

                                     

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/729/2014
Date of Institution	:	05/11/2014
Date of Decision	:	06/04/2015

 

Navneet Kaur d/o Shri Daljeet Singh resident of House No.387, Labour Bureau Enclave, Sector 49-A, Chandigarh

…..Complainant

V E R S U S

The Station Manager/AGM, Air India Airlines, SCO 162-164, Sector 34A, Chandigarh

……Opposite Party

 

 

QUORUM :	P.L.AHUJA	PRESIDENT
	MRS.SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER

                                                       

                       

For complainant	:	Sh. J.S. Kahlon, Advocate
For OP	:	Sh. S.R. Chaudhuri, Advocate

                         

PER P.L.AHUJA, PRESIDENT

1.         Ms. Navenet Kaur, complainant has filed this consumer complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against The Station Manager/AGM Air India Airlines, Opposite Party (hereinafter called the OP), alleging that the Air India Airlines Flight bearing No.AI 9502 from Agatti to Kochi on 25^th March 2014, for which she had obtained ticket amounting to Rs.4,522/- (Annexure A), was cancelled perhaps having developed a technical slang (snag?). According to the complainant, she was however assured to put in place the alternate arrangement to lift the passengers on priority. But, the OP failed to do so despite lapse of a considerable amount of time which caused her undue inconvenience and harassment.  It has been averred that when the OP failed to provide alternate arrangement, it promised to refund the requisite amount of fare.  But, the OP failed to do so despite requests sent through emails dated 11.7.2014 and 12.7.2014 (Annexure B). It has been further averred that earlier also the complainant had filed a consumer complaint No.613 of 2014 which was dismissed in default on 24.9.2014 (Annexure C). Alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP, the complainant has filed the instant complaint.
2.         In its written reply, the OP has averred that the flight in question had to be cancelled on 25.3.2014 after a careful examination of the engineering aspects and in the interest of paxes safety and security. It has further been averred that since no other airline operated to and from Agatti, alternative arrangements could not be made to ferry paxes back from Agatti.  It has, however, been contended that the said flight was operated next day and all stranded paxes at Agatti were accommodated for Kochi. According to the OP, the complainant after knowing that the flight AI 9502 had been cancelled due to a technical snag had made no contact with AI (OP) office at Agatti for obtaining flight cancelled ‘refund in order’ stamp.  It has been contended that the refund due stands already paid. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on its part, prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.
3.         The parties led evidence in support of their contentions.
4.         After appraising the entire evidence and the written arguments submitted by both sides, we find that the complaint merits dismissal.
5.         At the outset, it is pertinent to note that as per allegations in para 5 of the complaint, earlier the complainant filed one consumer complaint No.613 of 2014 before this Forum and did not appear on the date fixed i.e. 24.9.2014 and that complaint was dismissed in default vide order dated 24.9.2014 (Annexure C). Thereafter, the complainant filed a fresh complaint i.e. the present complaint bearing No.729 of 2014 on 5.11.2014 in respect of the same subject matter. In Bharti Axa General Insurance Company limited Vs. Om Parkash Jindal & others, First Appeal No.556 of 2013 decided on 3.3.2014 by our own Hon’ble State Commission, after going through the rulings of the Hon’ble National Commission, it was held that the second complaint with regard to the same subject matter in the face of dismissal in default or want of prosecution of the first consumer complaint relating to the same subject matter was not maintainable.  In the instant case, no doubt, no such objection has been raised by the OP in the written statement yet, since the same is a legal issue, it can be taken note of by this Forum.  Consequently, this complaint is not maintainable in view of the above legal position. 
6.         Even if it is assumed for the sake of arguments that the present complaint filed by the complainant is maintainable, nevertheless, the complainant has failed to establish any deficiency in service on the part of the OP.  Admittedly, the complainant booked an E-Ticket (Annexure A) with Air India for departure from Kochi to Agatti on 22.3.2014 and then for departure from Agatti to Kochi on 25.3.2014 for an amount of Rs.9,043/- on 7.3.2014. The complainant has no grievance in respect of the first flight from Kochi to Agatti on 22.3.2014.  Her only grievance is relating to the second flight which was to depart from Agatti on 25.3.2014 at 12:00 noon and was to arrive at Kochi at 13:20 hours. The OP has produced a communication Annexure R-1 which shows that the said flight was diverted back to Bangalore due to navigational aids failed in flight.  The complainant has alleged that the OP failed to provide alternate arrangement to lift the stranded passengers and caused undue inconvenience and harassment to her.  The complainant in her complaint has made a prayer for refund of the ticket fare of Rs.4,522/- with interest and a compensation of Rs.50,000/- for deficiency in service for not making available the alternative flight and causing harassment to her.
7.         The communication (Annexure R-2) coupled with the affidavit of Mr. R.K. Minhas, Station Manager (NACIL), Air India, Chandigarh reveals that the flight in question was cancelled at Bangalore itself due to engineering aspect and on the next day it was operated and all stranded passengers were accommodated. Since no hotel accommodation was available at Agatti, the passengers were requested to avail and arrange any Govt. guest house and certify in the cash receipt and request to collect the money from the nearest Air India Office.  The next communication at Annexure R-3 shows that it was confirmed that the complainant did not contact the local office of Air India on the day of travel or subsequently for hotel accommodation or the next day flight. The copy of communication dated 15.12.2014 (Annexure R-4) shows that the balance fare has also been refunded to the complainant on 15.12.2014. Significantly, the OP has specifically pleaded in the written statement that the complainant made no contact with AI office at Agatti for obtaining flight cancelled refund in order stamp and this step on her part could have resulted in an early refund of unutilized part of the ticket from any AI office – there being no accounting office at Agatti.  Further, the complainant did not turn up on the next day for flying back to Kochi.  In her affidavit filed by way of rebuttal, the complainant has pleaded that since she had confirmed prepaid chain advance booking costing more than Rs.20,000/- at Kochi/Munnar on 25.3.2014, therefore, she left through some other mode/ arrangement to reach Kochi. It is not the case of the complainant that she made any contact with AI office at Agatti for obtaining flight cancelled ‘refund in order’ stamp for early refund of the unutilized part of the ticket from any AI office.
8.         We find that since in this case the flight was cancelled at Bangalore itself due to technical snag and no other airline operates to and from Kochi, therefore, it was not possible for the OP to make alternative arrangement on 25.3.2014.  However, the evidence on record shows that on the next day, the flight was operated and all the stranded passengers were accommodated in that flight. If the complainant could not avail that flight due to her own urgency, it cannot be stated that there is any deficiency in service on the part of the OP.  As we have already observed, the balance amount has already been refunded to the complainant on 15.12.2014. The delay was on account of inaction on the part of the complainant for obtaining flight cancelled ‘refund in order’ stamp.  Resultantly, we do not find any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the OP.
9.         For the reasons recorded above, the complaint is devoid of any merit and the same is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs. 
10.         The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

	Sd/-	Sd/-
06/04/2015	[Surjeet Kaur]	[P. L. Ahuja]
hg	Member	President