State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

West Bengal

BHABANI BHAVAN (GROUND FLOOR)

31, BELVEDERE ROAD, ALIPORE

KOLKATA – 700 027





S.C. CASE NO. FA/08/449



DATE OF FILING: 26.11.2008

DATE OF FINAL ORDER: 03.03.2009


APPELLANT


Sri Sanat Kr. Mallick

S/o Late Raghunath Mallick

BA-69, Salt Lake, P.S. – Bidhannagar (N)

Kolkata – 700 064



RESPONDENT



National Aviation Company

Being represented by its General Manager (Commercial)

Eastern Region having its registered Office at

Airlines House, 1st floor

39, Chitta Ranjan Avenue

Kolkata – 700 012



BEFORE : HON’BLE JUSTICE MR. A. CHAKRABARTI, PRESIDENT

MEMBER : MR. A.K. RAY

MEMBER : MRS. S. MAJUMDER



FOR THE APPELLANT : Mr. Debasish Ghosh, Advocate

FOR THE RESPONDENT : Mr. P.R. Baksi, Advocate







: O R D E R :


HON’BLE JUSTICE MR. A. CHAKRABARTI, PRESIDENT





This appeal was filed against order dated 20.10.08 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kolkata Unit-II in CC No.340 of 2007 dismissing the complaint. The case of the complainant as made out in the complaint is that the complainant was scheduled to take a flight of the OP from Chennai to Kolkata at 17:00 hrs. on 30.3.07 but the flight was suddenly rescheduled to 17:30 hrs. as per first announcement of OP for some mechanical/engineering defects. The complainant duly reported and checked at Chennai Airport. Flight was rescheduled for the second time and by reason of the delay of the flight the complainant returned to Kolkata purchasing a ticket from Spicejet Airlines which took off at 18:30 hrs. The complainant a person of 70 years and a senior citizen with disturbed heart condition and also pre-occupation at Kolkata on 31.3.07, had no viable alternative but to return to Kolkata without waiting for indefinite period after the second announcement at Chennai Airport. The complainant sent legal notice to which a reply came from the OP apologizing for the inconvenience caused to the complainant for the said service deficiency of the OP. But, thereafter the OP through their Solicitors sent another reply denying the responsibility and liability on the part of the OP Airlines in the incident dated 30.3.07 at Chennai Airport. Accordingly the present complaint was filed asking for payment of Rs.18,525/- as compensation.

After the written objection was filed by the OP the matter was considered by the Forum below and taking a view that in case of delay in flight due to mechanical/engineering defect, there is no deficiency in service and the complainant’s travel from Chennai to Kolkata taking flight of another airlines, also does not show any deficiency on the part of the OP, and on such finding the complaint was dismissed.

Heard Mr. Debasish Ghosh, the Ld. Advocate for the Complainant/Appellant who strongly relied on the apology by OP for the incident on 30.3.02 and contending that the same amounting to an admission conclusively shows the deficiency in service and consequently the complainant is entitled to compensation.

The contention of the Respondent as advanced through Mr. P.R. Baksi, the Ld. Advocate is that the apology was due to inconvenience consequent upon the delay but it did not amount to an admission of any deficiency in service as delay due to mechanical failure or engineering defects of the aircraft does not amount to any deficiency in service.

We have considered the respective contentions and the materials on record. We also agree with the Ld. Forum below that mere apology does not amount to admission of deficiency in service. As a gesture of business prudence apology even in case of unintentional delay, is quite common. The complainant is to prove existence of any deficiency in service of the OP to show entitlement of complainant to any compensation.

The complaint does not dispute the ground for rescheduling the departure time of the concerned flight. From the complaint we find that the OP declared rescheduling of departure time on the ground of mechanical defect. In the complaint the mechanical defect itself has not been denied or disputed. Therefore, the OP was not required to prove the fact of mechanical defect even in absence of any dispute raised in the complainant to the said ground.

The complainant relied on the judgment in the case of British Airways-Vs-Mona Bhog reported in (2008)3 CPJ 100. The facts of this case do not apply in the present case and, therefore, the said judgment does not help the complainant/appellant. Next judgment cited by the appellant is in the case of Air India-Vs-Reema Sawhny reported in (2008)3 CPJ 275 also a case of denial of Boarding to confirmed ticket holder in the flight and, therefore, this judgment also does not apply in the present case. The judgment in the case of Vinod Sanghi-Vs-Hyderabad Silver Hawk, Express Services Pvt. Ltd. reported in (2007)1 CPR 258 related to want to service in a flight and fact being totally different, this judgment also does not help the complainant. Some judgments as reported in Newspaper have been relied on behalf of the complainant but as neither facts are similar nor the actual report has been made available, those could not be relied on.

Therefore, in the facts available we do not find any ground for interference with the impugned judgment and the appeal is hereby dismissed and the impugned judgment is affirmed.







(S. Majumder) (A.K. Ray) (Justice A. Chakrabarti)

MEMBER(L) MEMBER PRESIDENT