PER SHRI. S.S. PATIL - HON’BLE MEMBER :
1) This is the complaint regarding deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Party No.2 as the Complainants are not allowed to travel in a scheduled flight for which tickets were booked. Thus, causing enormous delay in reaching at the destination at Kuala-Lumpur.
2) The facts of this case as stated by the Complainant are that the Complainant wanted to go to Singapore, Malaysia, Kuala-Lumpur, genting iland and Thailand, Bangkok and Pataya. In order to visit these places, the Complainants approached Opposite Party No.1, the authorized ticket booking Agent of Opposite Party No.2 and booked return air tickets of Opposite Party No.2 Airlines.
3) The deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Party No.2 was in respect of air flights scheduled on 14/12/06 at 7.35 at Singapore. The Complainants stayed at Singapore in the night of 13/12/06. They were supposed to leave Singapore at 7.35 a.m. on 14/12/06 and reach at Kuala-Lumpur at 9.30 a.m. and stay there on 14/12/06 and 15/12/06. They were supposed to leave for Bangkok, Pataya on 16/12/06 at 9.00 a.m. and then finally on the same day they were supposed to return to Mumbai. The Complainants had confirmed Air tickets for the whole tour programme. On 14/12/06, the Complainants reached Singapore Airport at 5.00 a.m. as they had to pick up flight scheduled at 7.35 a.m. They reached 2 ½ hours earlier as per the scheduled flight. According to the scheduled programme, the Opposite Party No.2 was supposed to take them in their 7.35 flight from Singapore to Malaysia.
4) The Complainant reached the Singapore Airport at 5.00 a.m. on 14/12/06. They were the 1st passengers to check in that flight. They received the boarding pass and then they completed security check etc. When the Complainant were about to board the flight, they were stopped by the Opposite Party staff and they were asked to wait. No reason was given for stopping them. By that time all other passengers boarded the flight. The Complainants were then told that the flight was full. They were also told that the flight would take passengers to Colombo only. Though the flight would stop at Kuala-Lumpur, as per schedule, it would not take any passenger of that destination. They were also told that they would be taken in the next flight. The next flight was at 8.30 a.m. of Singapore Airlines. But they were not taken in 8.30 a.m. flight. At this time the Complainants were again told that they would be accommodated in 10.00 a.m. flight at Terminal 2. The 10.00 a.m. flight also left the airport without taking the Complainants. The Complainants became confused and upset by this delay in getting a flight. Children were hungry.
5) After a long time the Complainants were provided with coupons (for 1 sandwich on 1 glass juice). There was no proper information regarding their luggages. Nobody was giving proper answers regarding their luggage. The Complainant told Mr. Rezel, the agent of the Opposite Party No.2 that they would not board the flight till they would get the information about their luggage. It is the allegation of the Complainant that this person was very rude. Thereafter Mr. Zool, another person of Opposite Party No.2 gave them boarding pass of Singapore Airline Flight SQ 108 scheduled to leave Singapore at 12.30 p.m. But this flight was also late by one hour. Ultimately the Complainants reached at their destination at 2.30 p.m. No food was provided by the Opposite Party No.2 during the flight.
6) On arrival to Kuala-Lumpur Airport, nobody was there to receive them. Mr. Vinod arranged for hotel transfer and then they reached at hotel at 6.00 p.m. so from 4.00 a.m. to 6.00 p.m. the Complainants were restless for 14 hours. It is the allegation of the Complainants that due to the negligence of the Opposite Party, this delay was caused. The whole schedule of tour was disturbed and they could not enjoy some of the sight seeing programme and they have to drop some places. They could not go to see Genting Island. The whole day (14/12/06) was wasted in Singapore Airport due to mismanagement of the Opposite Party.
7) It was also alleged by the Complainants that, they had booked the tickets a month in advance. The tickets were confirmed tickets but due to the negligence and greediness of Opposite Party, at last moment, even after boarding passes were issued to them, they were not allowed to board the scheduled flight. Two of them were Sr. Citizens and two were small kids still they were harassed as stated above.
8) The Complainants have therefore, prayed for compensation of 10 Lacs jointly with interest @ 18 % for harassment and not rendering services and Rs.5 Lacs for the fact that the Complainants could not see the places at Malaysia due to the deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Party.
9) The Complainant has attached the xerox copies of the invoice dtd.20/11/06 issued by Opposite Party 1 Air ticket, Boarding passes. Vouchers dtd.25/11/06 of ASPIMALS. 28/11/06, dtd.25/11/06pf Stanford, 29/11/06, prepaid service voucher dtd.25/11/06 receipt of Rs.47,000/- issued by Area Tourism (India) New Delhi, dd.28/12/06.
10) The complaint was admitted and notices were served on the Opposite Parties. Opposite Party No.1 filed its say stating that there is no allegation of any deficiency against it. It admitted that the Complainants had booked their air tickets through Opposite Party No.1. The dispute is between Opposite Party No.2 and the Complainant. The Opposite Party is not concerned with this dispute. The service provided by the Opposite Party No.1 is only issuance of the air tickets and not more than that. So it is prayed by Opposite Party No.1 that it may be exonerated from the charges leveled by the Complainant.
11) Opposite Party No.2 filed its written statement, it denied almost all the allegations of the deficiency and specifically stated that it regrets the short delay caused to the Complainants during their carriage from Singapore to Kuala-Lumpur on 14/12/06 but it has explained that “there is a practice known as denied boarding for a particular flight when arrangements are made forthwith for the passengers to be accommodated on another flight to the same destination leaving shortly is ‘usual’ in airlines industry. Some time it becomes inevitable especially during peak season. It is also submitted by the Opposite Party that it is not possible for airlines to predicate in advance the number of seats which would be vacant, resulting in overbooking of flight to avoid seats remaining vacant.
12) The Opposite Party No.2 has further submitted that the Complainants were booked on a flight UL 316 which was to leave at 7.35 a.m. on 14/12/06. They were denied boarding on this flight solely because the next flight SQ 106 on which they were to be accommodated was to depart at 8.30. on this flight also they could not be accommodate as they did not respond to the paging, leaving no time for them to be de-checked from their original flight and de-checked in for the 8.30 flight as they reported to the boarding gate only a few minutes before the departure time of their original flight. Therefore, the Opposite Party No.2 was compelled to transfer them to the next available flight i.e. MH604 which was to leave at 10.05 meantime they provided break fast to the passengers. At this point of time when the Opposite Party’s official was escorting to the Complainants to 10.05 a.m. flight, the Complainants refused to board it and insisted for the staff of the Opposite Party No.2 instead of handling Agent Sots. By this time the doors of the plane of flight of 10.05 also were closed. So the Complainant could not be board in the said flight of 10.05 a.m. The Opposite Party No.2 has explained that there was no reason for the Complainants to refuse to board this flight. Therefore, the Opposite Party was compelled to board the Complainants on the next available flight i.e. SQ 108 which was scheduled to leave Singapore at 12.30 p.m.
13) The Opposite Party No.2 has denied that no breakfast was provided to the Complainants. It also denied the allegations of rude behavior of the officials of the Opposite Party No.2. Regarding the luggage, the Opposite Party No.2 has explained that the luggage was duly put on the flight on which the Complainants travelled – Regarding the facilities at Kuala-Lumpur the Opposite Party No.2 has stated that the Complainants were assisted and a van was provided to their hotel. The handling agent at Kuala-Lumpur also arranged to confirm that extension of time be given to check in the Complainants at the hotel.
14) The Opposite Party No.2 has denied the charges of negligence and deficiency in service on their part and stated that there was delay of only 2½ hours and all possible help was given to the Complainants. Finally, the Opposite Party has prayed that the complaint be dismissed with cost.
15) The Opposite Party No.2 has also filed the affidavit in evidence. Thereafter, the Complainant filed affidavit of evidence and written argument wherein they reiterated the facts mentioned in their complaint. The Opposite Party No.2 also filed written argument wherein the facts mentioned in the written statement are reiterated. It also filed an unsigned quote of one Allen regarding the incident on 14/12/06 at Singapore in respect of the Complainant.
16) We heard the Ld.Advocate for the Complainant and Ld.Advocate for Opposite Party No.2. We also perused the documents filed by both the parties and our findings are as follows.
17) The Complainants had confirmed air tickets of Opposite Party No.2 from Mumbai to Singapore to Kuala-Lumpur to Bangkok Pataya and back. They were scheduled to travel form 10/12/06 to 16/12/06. on 14/12/06, as per schedule they were travel by air flight UL316 at 7.35 a.m. The Complainants were also provided boarding passes to board this flight but they were denied the boarding on the ground of over booking. The Opposite Party No.2 has admitted this fact in its written statement. After the 7.35 flight the Complainants were supposed to be accommodated in next available flight but the Complainants could not board on flight at 8.30 and 10.05. We carefully read the reasons given by the Opposite Party No.2 in its written statement for not boarding the flight at 8.30 a.m. and 10.05 a.m. and for the delay caused upto 1.30 p.m. delay. The Complainants have alleged that they were finally accommodated in the flight scheduled to leave at 12.30 but it was again delayed till 1.30 p.m. This fact was not denied by the Opposite Party No.2. The reasons given by the Opposite Party No.2 for not accommodating the Complainants in flights at 8.30 and 10.05 are really lame excuses. The Opposite Party No.2 itself has admitted the delay of 2½ hours. However, from the perusal of the complaint and the written statement of the Opposite Party itself it is clear that the flight in which the Complainants were accommodated has left Singapore at 1.30 p.m. Therefore, there is a clear delay of 6 hours. This delay was caused because of over booking by the Opposite Party No.2, because of mismanaging the accommodation in flight at 8.30 and not giving proper information about the luggages to the Complainant. It appears that there was no proper rapport between the Opposite Party No.2 and Complainants. The Opposite Party No.2 has not taken proper care to accommodate the Complainants in the next available flights. It was the obligation of the Opposite Party No.2 to allow the Complainants to board the flight at 7.35 a.m. when the Complainants were given a boarding passes. But the Opposite Party No.2 is certainly deficient in service as they did not allow the Complainant to board this flight. Even after this flight, the Opposite Party No.2 had miserably failed to accommodate the Complainants in the next available flights and thereby caused a delay of 6 hours which ultimately caused inconvenience and mental agony to the Complainants. However, the compensation prayed for is exorbitant and not supported by any cognate evidence to quantify the compensation. The Complainants had certainly missed some of the sights in Kuala-Lumpur on 14/12/2006 as per schedule. Therefore, the Complainants are entitled for some compensation for the mental agony and inconvenience caused to them.
18) There is no material on record to establish any deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Party No.1. Therefore it would be just and proper to dismiss the complaint against Opposite Party No.1.
19) In view of the above observations we pass the following order –
O R D E R
i.Complaint No.51/2007 is partly allowed against Opposite Party No.2.
ii.Opposite Party No.2 is directed to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- (Rs. Fifty Thousand Only)to the Complainant
for mental agony caused as result of deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Party No.2.
iii.Opposite Party No.2 is directed to pay Rs.5,000/- (Rs. Five Thousand Only) to the Complaint as cost of this
complaint.
iv.Opposite Party is directed to comply with the above said order within 30 days from the receipt of this order.
v.Complaint against Opposite Party No.1 is hereby dismissed.
vi.Certified copies of this order be furnished to the parties.
