KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL No. 463/2018

JUDGMENT DATED: 17.02.2023

(Against the Order in C.C. 150/2017 of CDRF, Ernakulam)

PRESENT:

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. K. SURENDRA MOHAN              : PRESIDENT

SRI.RANJIT. R                                                                               : MEMBER

APPELLANT:

M/s Jet Airways (India) Ltd., Siroya Centre, Sahar Airport Road, Andheri East, Mumbai, Maharashtra-400 099 represented by its authorized officer and Assistant Manager, Neil Kurian. 

(By Adv. George Cherian Karippaparambil)

                                                Vs.

RESPONDENTS:

1. Wilfred Das, ‘Pokkath’, Edayakkunnam, South Chittoor P.O., Kochi-682 027.

2. Shema Das, ‘Pokkath’, Edayakkunnam, South Chittoor P.O., Kochi-682 027.

3. Adhwaith Das, ‘Pokkath’, Edayakkunnam, South Chittoor P.O., Kochi-682 027.

4. The Manager, M/s Travel Wonders, Ravipuram, Ernakulam, Kochi-682 016.

JUDGMENT

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. K. SURENDRA MOHAN : PRESIDENT          

The 2^nd opposite party in C.C. No. 150/2017 of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ernakulam (District Forum for short) is the appellant.  The appellant is aggrieved by the final order dated 06.04.2018 passed by the District Forum, ordering payment of compensation of an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- and costs of litigation of Rs. 10,000/- to the complainants.  The respondents herein are the complainants and the 1^st opposite party before the District Forum.  The parties are referred to in accordance with their status in the complaint before the District Forum. 

2.  The 1^st complainant is a practicing advocate of the High Court of Kerala and an accredited mediator.  The 2^nd complainant is his wife and the 3^rd complainant is his son, a student of the final year B.Sc Degree course.  On 21.10.2016, the complainants along with two of their relatives had booked five flight tickets through the 2^nd opposite party for travelling from Kochi to Delhi and back.  The 2^nd opposite party issued confirmed tickets to them and an amount of Rs. 54,800/- was paid as the airfare on 21.10.2016.  Their journey from Kochi to Delhi was scheduled on 27.12.2016 (Jet Airways Flight 9W911) and from Delhi to Kochi on 02.01.2017 at 4.05 pm which was scheduled to reach Kochi at 7.15 pm on the same day.  The complainants travelled to Delhi as per the above schedule on 27.12.2016 on the tickets issued to them.

3.  On 02.01.2017 at about 12.30 pm in the afternoon the complainants received a text message from the 2^nd opposite party informing them that they should reach the airport at least two hours before the scheduled time.  Accordingly, the complainants reached the airport at about 1.00 pm and waited in a long queue at the Jet Airways counter.  When they reached the counter their tickets were verified, their luggage were tagged and sent through the rollers and boarding passes were also issued to them.  While so, the personnel at the counter received a phone call and he ordered to stop the rollers and sent a man to bring back the luggage and collected back the boarding passes issued to the complainants.  Then their luggage was kept aside and the complainants were asked to remain there.  Thereafter, a lady supervisor told the complainants that the flight was overbooked and that they would not be able to travel in that flight.  They were directed to wait until alternative arrangements were made.  Though the complainants requested for being permitted to travel on that flight itself, she did not agree.   According to the complainants, since they reached the airport without even taking their lunch, they had to wait at the airport counter undergoing severe mental strain and tension due to the uncertainty of their arrangements.  The 1^st complainant, an advocate of the High Court of Kerala, who had professional engagements on 03.01.2017, the reopening date of the court after Christmas holidays, was worried and tensed at the uncertainty of his travel. His son, who was a final year student of BSc degree course also had to attend classes on 03.01.2017.  Later on, the complainants were given tickets on a flight to Mumbai which reached there at 11 pm.  The connection flight to Kochi was available only at 6.40 am on 03.01.2017.  The complainants had to spend the night at the airport lounge on the chairs available there.  It was only after a long ordeal that the complainants were finally able to return to Kochi.

4.  According to the complainants, denial of boarding passes and entry to them in the flight on which they were holding confirmed tickets amounted to serious deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.  The illegal action of the 2^nd opposite party has caused needless suffering, mental agony and loss to the complainants.  Therefore, they claimed compensation of an amount of Rs. 6,00,000/- towards mental and physical agony.  A further amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- was sought as compensation for the delay caused to their travel.  A further amount of Rs. 25,000/- was sought as costs of the proceedings.

5.  The complaint was admitted and notices were issued to the opposite parties by the District Forum.  Despite receipt of notice the 1^st opposite party did not appear and was therefore set ex-parte.  The 2^nd opposite party appeared through counsel, and contested the complaint. 

6.  According to the 2^nd opposite party, Jet Airways India Pvt. Ltd., the complaint was not maintainable before the District Forum for the reason that the incident complained of had taken place at Delhi.  Therefore, the District Forum lacked territorial jurisdiction.  The averments that the 1^st complainant was a practicing advocate and that his son was a student of BSc degree course were denied.  According to the 2^nd opposite party, the practice of overbooking flights was followed by almost all Airlines worldwide, as each airline operates in a competitive environment.  Such a procedure is adopted for the reason that, there are always some last minute cancellations as a result of which the airlines would have to carry vacant seats.  On the basis of an extensive trend analysis, all airlines overbook flights to such an extent that the number of overbooked passengers is equal to the experienced last minute cancellations, no shows.  However, on the day in question the said mode did not work.  Therefore, the passengers who reported after the flight capacity of 168 seats was filled up had to be denied boarding.  168 passengers had been checked in by 1.50 pm on 02.01.2017.  Since the complainants had reported only at 3 pm they had to be denied boarding for the reason that the flight capacity was full. 

7.  The complainants were duly informed that the flight was full and alternative arrangements were immediately made for their travel to Kochi via Mumbai.  The arrangement was accepted by the complainants without any dispute or regret.  Accordingly, they travelled to Mumbai in flight No. 9W 0362 on 02.01.2017 itself.  Complementary dinner was served to them during the flight which was available to other passengers only on cost.  At Mumbai airport the complainants were given lounge accommodation in terminal 2 ground floor, for stay with food and beverages without any extra charges for them.  Arrangements were made for their travel from Mumbai to Kochi by flight No. 9W 0436 which departed at 6.20 am on 03.01.2017.  They denied the various allegations of the complainants regarding inconvenience, mental agony, personal problem etc.  The allegations that the conduct of the 2^nd opposite party amounted to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice were also denied.

8.  The parties went to trial on the above pleadings.  The evidence in the case consists of PWs 1 & 2 and Exts. A1 A10 documents.  DW1 was examined as a witness on the side of the 2^nd opposite party and Ext. B1 was marked on their side.  After hearing both sides, the District Forum considered the complaint on the merits.  It has been found that the conduct of the 2^nd opposite party amounted to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.  Accordingly, a compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- and a further amount of Rs. 10,000/- as costs of litigation have been awarded.  It is aggrieved by the said order that the 2^nd opposite party has filed the above appeal. 

9.  Heard.  According to Adv. George Cherian Karippaparambil who appears for the appellant, the order under appeal is unsustainable and liable to be set aside.  The District Forum has not considered the contentions of the appellant in the proper perspective.  The District Forum has failed to appreciate the civil aviation requirements that are accepted by the office of the Director General of Civil Aviation, Govt. of India.  The practice of overbooking of flights is followed by airlines worldwide as a routine, since each airline operates in a competitive environment of low tariff rates. The incident in which boarding was denied to the complainants was an unfortunate and untoward episode that happened due to no fault on the part of the 2^nd opposite party.  Therefore, the conclusion that there was unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of the appellant is without any basis.  The appellant had immediately made alternative arrangements for the travel of the complainants to Kochi, provided them with meals and accommodation, without any additional charges.  They were also transported to Kochi early in the morning on the next day itself.  According to the learned counsel, therefore there is no justification in awarding the amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation and Rs. 10,000/- as litigation expenses to the complainants. 

10.  Per contra, the 1^st respondent contended that, they had booked their tickets as early as on 21.10.2016.  They had reached the airport at 1.00 pm on 02.01.2017, well in time to be checked in early.  However, they were deliberately excluded and made to face the ordeal of the wait in the airport at Delhi, facing the uncertainty of their onward travel.  Later on, they were taken to Mumbai and left at the airport lounge to spend the night in discomfort.  They were able to reach Kochi only on the next day.  It is alleged that the appellant had indiscriminately issued tickets in excess of the seating capacity of the aircraft at exorbitant rates and had denied seats to passengers like the complainants.  Therefore, it is contended that the District Forum rightly allowed his complaint and granted compensation.  There are no grounds to interfere with the order appealed against.  He sought for dismissal for the appeal. 

11.  Heard.  The facts in this case are not disputed.  The fact that the complainants had booked tickets for their travel from Kochi to Delhi as early as on 21.10.2016 is admitted.  They were therefore holding confirmed tickets for their travel from Delhi to Kochi on 02.01.2017.  In spite of the above, they were denied permission to board the flight though they had reported at the counter of the appellant at the appointed time. The explanation of the appellant is that the flight had been overbooked and that such a procedure is normally resorted to by all airlines.  However, the reason for declining boarding permission to the complainants who had booked their tickets as early as on 21.10.2016 is not acceptable.  It is obvious that seats were available in the flight on 21.10.2016, when the complainants had booked their tickets.  It cannot be denied that overbooking of the flight had taken place only thereafter.  If so, the question arises as to why the passengers who had booked sufficiently in advance were excluded by the appellant while granting permission to passengers who had purchased their tickets at a later point of time to board the flight? There is no explanation as to what yardstick was adopted by the appellant in such a situation where overbooking was created by their own conduct.  If some passengers had to be denied boarding permission, it should have been the passengers who had booked their tickets at a later point of time.  Apparently, no reasonable method appears to have been adopted by the appellant.  The policy of pick and choose followed by the appellant cannot be justified in any view of the manner.

12.  We have perused the order of the District Forum.  The evidence on record have been considered and properly appreciated in the judgment appealed against.  The conclusions drawn are fully justified by the evidence on record and the circumstances that remain undisputed.  The compensation granted cannot be termed as unreasonable considering the strain, mental agony and inconvenience that the complainants were subjected to, by the irresponsible conduct of the appellant.  The costs ordered are also reasonable. 

For the above reasons, we find no grounds to interfere with the order appealed against. This appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed.  No costs.

As condition for the grant of interim order of stay while admitting this appeal, we had directed the appellant to deposit an amount of Rs. 25,000/- before the District Forum.  Accordingly we have been informed that the said amount has been deposited.  The complainants/respondents 1 to 3 shall be entitled to seek disbursement of the said amount, to be adjusted towards the amounts awarded as compensation and costs by the District Forum. 

The statutory deposit of Rs. 25,000/- made before this Commission by the appellant at the time of filing this appeal shall also be disbursed to the complainants/respondents 1 to 3, to be adjusted towards the amounts  ordered by the District Forum as per the order appealed against.  For the balance amount due to them, they are at liberty to pursue execution proceedings. 

JUSTICE K. SURENDRA MOHAN  : PRESIDENT

                       RANJIT. R                : MEMBER                           

jb