DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II U.T. CHANDIGARH [Complaint Case No: 405 of 2011] Date of Institution : 02.09.2011 Date of Decision : 30.05.2012 ----------------------------------------- Gurbachan Singh Madpuri, r/o H.No. 171-A, Sector 8-A, Chandigarh. ---Complainant VERSUS [1] Virgin Atlantic Airlines, through their Booking Agent, M/s R.S. Communications, Shop No. 314, Sector 32-D, Chandigarh. [2] M/s R.S. Communications, Shop No. 314, Sector 32-D, Chandigarh, authorized booking agents of Virgin Atlantic Airlines. ---Opposite Parties. BEFORE: SHRI LAKSHMAN SHARMA PRESIDENT MRS. MADHU MUTNEJA MEMBER SHRI JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU MEMBER Argued By: Shri R.S. Raj, Adv. and M. Kirandip Kaur, Adv. for the Complainant. Sh. Ajay K. Dutta, Adv. & Vijay Kishore Kumar, A.A for Opposite Party No.1. Opposite Party No. 2 Ex-parte. PER JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU, MEMBER. 1. Complainant has filed the present complaint against the Opposite Parties on the grounds that the Complainant by paying Rs.60,000/- booked a return ticket of Opposite Party No. 1 from New Delhi to New York and back (Annexure C-1), departing on 12.4.2011, through their authorized booking agent (Opposite Party No.2) at Chandigarh. The Complainant reached New Delhi International Airport, in time, on 12.4.2011. But the staff of Opposite Party No. 1 was not adequate, and delayed the issuing of boarding pass to him. It is also stated that there was rush at the immigration counters, due to the non-functioning of few counters, dealing with the same. 2. The Complainant claims to have approached the desk staff of Opposite Party No.1 at the airport to lend him a helping hand, but no help came forward. Instead the Complainant was told to contact the ground staff, posted at the Airport. The Complainant failed to locate any ground staff, who could be help to him. In all this confusion, the Complainant missed the flight, due to the non-cooperation and mis- management of the staff of Opposite Party No. 1. 3. The Complainant approached the lady manager of the airlines at the airport, and requested her to arrange for accommodation and also to adjust the Complainant in next available flight, so that the Complainant may reach his destination without further delay. 4. The Complainant was told that any change in the ticket could only be effected at the end of Opposite Party No. 2 at Chandigarh and also snatched the boarding pass allotted to him earlier, and used a foul language. The Complainant who is 69 years of age felt insulted by the rude behaviour of the lady member. 5. The Complainant claims to have hired a Taxi for his up-down journey to Chandigarh, whereupon he managed a confirmed ticket for 13.4.2011, from Opposite Party No.2 by paying an amount of Rs.5400/- extra. The Complainant claims to have spent Rs.4800/- and Rs.4600/- for his two way journey from Delhi to Chandigarh and back (Annexure C-2 & C-3) and also claims to have suffered enormous physical and mental pain and agony for no fault of his. Complainant thus citing deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties, served a legal notice dated 4.8.2011 (Annexure C-4 & C-5), through a registered post. As the registered letters were not received back, they are presumed to have received by the Opposite Parties. However, after having registered his grievance, no reply is forthcoming from the side of the Opposite Parties, which according to the Complainant, is a discourteous behaviour. 6. The Complainant thus alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties has sought the refund of Rs.5400/- paid on account of change in ticket plus Rs.9400/- paid on account of taxi charges along with Rs.50,000/- for having caused mental and physical pain and agony, with an interest @ 18% p.a., till it is paid. 7. Opposite Party No.1 has contested the claim of the complainant by filing its reply, taking preliminary objections to the effect that the Complainant did not have any right to cause any form of hindrance in safeguarding and security pertaining to the cause of the general public, customer of the answering Opposite Party, as well as the security personnel. It is further mentioned that the Complainant was off aid on account of security reasons since he did not reach the gate for boarding despite sufficient time at his disposal for his immigration clearance and continuous announcements were made in his name at the immigration as well as boarding gate. Thus, claiming no deficiency in service on its part, Opposite Party No. 1 requests the dismissal of the present complaint at the very threshold. It is further stated that the present complaint by the Complainant is an act to smear the reputation with malafide intention of exacting gratuitous demands from the answering Opposite Party. Even the relationship with Opposite Party No. 2 is also denied and it is also stated that there is no principal agent relationship with Opposite Party No. 2. 8. While replying on merits, Opposite Party No. 1 has denied the contents of Para 1 as being wrong, as well as the relationship with Opposite Party No. 2 being authorized agent of the answering Opposite Party too are denied. However, the other facts with regard to the purchase to ticket of answering Opposite Party, and other relevant details, are admitted. While replying to para no. 2, the contents are stated to be false and fabricated and vehemently denied. It is also denied that there was any inadequate staff, nor there was any delay in issuing boarding pass to the Complainant and it is further stated that it hardly takes more than two minutes in issuing the boarding pass. In reply to para no. 3, it is claimed to be wrong and false. It is stated that there were 8 ground staff personnel present in the lobby and that the Complainant had as many as 73 minutes to reach the boarding gate after having receiving the boarding pass. But it was the Complainant, who disappeared, and did not show up, even after repeated announcements by Opposite Party No. 1. It is also mentioned that if at all the Complainant needed any assistance, he could have gone back to the same check-in desk, but the Complainant preferred not to do so. 9. Opposite Party No.1 has also stated that all the passengers who were accepted/ issued boarding pass after him and even a family with kids accepted/ issued boarding pass at 12:13 hrs. Cleared immigration and could board the flight but how come the Complainant failed to clear the immigration in 73 minutes. It is also stated that as many as 253 passengers had gone through all the areas and boarded the aircraft without any mis-management on the part of the Opposite Party No. 1. Furthermore, it is stated that Opposite Party no. 1 after making continuous announcements for last missing passengers, the Complainant did not report at the gate, and was thus, off loaded from the system at 13:12 hrs i.e. only 3 minutes from departure of flight whereas the passenger needs to be at gate 30 minutes before departure. Hence, it was due to the act of the Complainant that he was off loaded for not having reported on time at the departure gate. 10. The Opposite Party No.1 has further stated that the Complainant hid the boarding pass and refused to hand it over to the ground handling staff as it was necessary for the Air Customs and CISF Security Incharge to offload the bag of the Complainant to the departure level from the ramp after its offloading from the aircraft till it is united with him for his exit from the terminal. The use of foul and abusive language is also denied. The event of snatching of the boarding pass from the Complainant too is vehemently denied. As the Complainant was no show passenger, hence, was not entitled for any accommodation, nor it was an obligation on the part of Opposite Party No. 1 to bear any such costs. 11. The Opposite Party No. 1 ha categorically stated that as per clause 7.1.3 of the conditions of Carriage the Opposite Party No. 1 was permitted to refuse his carriage for further travel with the Opposite Party No.1. Since the Complainant failed to observe security instructions and tried to hinder the ground staff of the Opposite Party No. 1 in performance of their duties during his offloading of bags and exiting through Airport. 12. While reply to para 5 to 7, Opposite Party No. 1 has denied any knowledge of the fact about the travel undertaken by the Complainant from Delhi to Chandigarh and back, for effecting the change in his ticket. Even the acceptance of legal notice too is denied. Opposite Party No.1 has vehemently denied any wrong conduct, deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on its part. Even the event of use of abuse or insult by the ground staff too is denied. Contents of para 8 being the matter of record claimed to deserve no reply. In reply to para 9 it is stated that the Opposite Party No. 2 is not the authorized booking agent of Opposite Party No. 1 hence the territorial jurisdiction of this forum is also questioned. Thus, claiming no deficiency in service, Opposite Party No. 1 pray for dismissal of complaint qua it. 13. Opposite Party No.2 has contested the claim of the complainant by filing its reply, taking preliminary objections to the effect that the grievances of the Complainant as mentioned in the present Complaint, there is no deficiency in service on its part, nor any unfair trade practice that can be attributed to it, even the change in the ticket, which was effected from 12.4.2011 to 13.4.2011 on telephonic instructions of the Complainant who was at DELHI at point of time. The answering Opposite Party is using the portal of “travel boutique online” for issuing the tickets of different airlines, and is not an authorized agent of Opposite Party No.1. 14. While replying on merits, Opposite Party No. 2 has specifically denied that the answering Opposite Party is not the authorized booking agent of Opposite Party No. 1. While denying all the averments of the complaint the fact with regard to the change of date from 12.04.2011 to 13.04.2011 by charging Rs. 5400/- is admitted, which according to it is a normal business practice as per the procedure and rules of the airlines. Even the receipt of Rs.5400/- is claimed to have been issued to one Durga Das Sharma, the friend of the complainant. The fact with regard to the hiring of taxi by the complainant too is denied for want of knowledge. 15. Parties led their respective evidences. 16. Having gone through the entire complaint, version of the Opposite Parties, their respective evidences and with the able assistance of the learned counsels for the parties, we have come to the following conclusions. 17. The main grievance of the complainant is with regard to the happening of an event which occurred at the time of his boarding the plane. The complainant has specifically alleged that even after having reported at the valid time on 12.4.2011, the ground staff of Opposite Party No. 1 was not adequate, which delayed in issuance of boarding pass to him, even a rush at the immigration counters, is alleged, as only 9 counters out of 39 counters were working. Even the desk staff of Opposite Party no. 1 was found wanting in lending helping hand to the Complainant. The Complainant claims that in such a confusing situation, he missed the flight due to non-cooperation and mismanagement of the staff of the Opposite Party No.1. Secondly, the next event is with regard to the snatching of his boarding pass, by the Lady Manager Incharge of the airline at the airport, at that point of time, and using foul language and telling him to leave, immediately, without addressing his request for accommodation, till next flight could be organized for him. 18. While replying to these allegations Opposite Party No.1 in its reply/ version has vehemently denied them and at the same time has stated that the entire events are because of the delay which the Complainant himself has caused for. Even the event of snatching of the boarding pass is denied, but however, the fact that the Complainant resisted handing over of the boarding pass to the staff of the airport, is admitted. While making these submissions, Opposite Party No.1 further claims that the Complainant had caused an obstruction in the working of the ground staff as well as the security staff Incharge responsible for keeping the airport security. The reply of Opposite Party no. 1 is neither verified, nor is supported by a detailed affidavit. The affidavit filed by one Stephen King, General Manager, Authorized Signatory of Opposite Party No. 1, is a brief two paragraph document, wherein the status of him being an authorized signatory is reiterated, but it does not support the para-wise submissions of the version/ reply of the Opposite Party No. 1, thus, this affidavit, cannot be treated as a piece of evidence. Hence in the absence a cogent, reliable and trustworthy evidence, the allegations of the Complainant of neither being helped in a proper manner, nor being accommodated in the event of having missed his flight, and furthermore, the manhandling done by the ground staff of Opposite Party No. 1 go unrebutted. 19. While looking into the reply/ version of Opposite Party No. 2, we feel that the main grievance of the Complainant is against Opposite Party No. 1, and Opposite Party No. 2 has in no way contributed to harassment suffered by the Complainant, as Opposite Party No. 1 and 2, have denied any relationship between themselves of being any authorized agent. In these circumstances, the present complaint against Opposite Party No. 2 does not succeed. The same is accordingly, dismissed qua Opposite Party No. 2. 20. It is also noticed that Opposite Party No. 1 has failed to bring on record any document to support its reply/ version, in the absence of any such document, that could establish, the wrong committed by the Complainant, the counter allegations of the Opposite Party No. 1, are devoid of any force. The factor that the Complainant had actually obstructed the Security Staff at the Airport could have been established by bringing independent evidence, but Opposite Party No. 1 has failed to bring any document on record to this effect. 21. The Opposite Party No. 1 has claimed that the Complainant was declared a no show passenger. Even though a boarding pass was issued, and his luggage was loaded in the Aircraft which was later on off loaded on his not reporting on time at the departure gate, is not corroborated by any document establishing this fact. 22. It is also noticed that the Complainant had different options, at his disposal, in order to get his ticket revalidated, and as he had preferred to travel to Chandigarh, and back to Delhi, as mentioned in his complaint, we feel that the expense so incurred, are consequential and the same does not deserve any consideration. Even the amount of Rs.5400/- paid by the Complainant, for re-issuance of ticket for the next day, too is not proved to be ingenuine, thus, we do not feel that this aspect needs any consideration. 23. In these circumstances, the allegations of the Complainant with regard to his manhandling and not being properly guided or helped at the Airport, by the ground staff of Opposite Party No. 1, succeed against the Opposite Party No.1. Thus finding definite deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Party No.1, the present complaint deserves to succeed qua it. Hence, we allow the present complaint against Opposite Party No. 1 and direct it to pay a consolidated amount of compensation to the tune of Rs.10,000/- on account of deficiency in service and causing agony and harassment to the Complainant. 24. The above said order shall be complied within 45 days of its receipt by Opposite Party No.1; thereafter, Opposite Party No.1 shall be liable for an interest @18% per annum on the amount of Rs.10,000/- from the date of the institution of this complaint i.e. this order 02.09.2011, till it is paid. 25. Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room. Announced 30th May, 2012Sd/- (LAKSHMAN SHARMA) PRESIDENT Sd/- (MADHU MUTNEJA) MEMBER Sd/- (JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU) MEMBER
| | MRS. MADHU MUTNEJA, MEMBER | HONABLE MR. LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT | MR. JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU, MEMBER | |
