BEFORE THE TELANGANA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION : HYDERABAD
FA NO.825 OF 2013 AGAINST CC NO.306 OF 2012
ON THE FILE OF DISTRICT FORUM-II, HYDERABAD
Between:
1) Dr.Mohd. Nazeer Ahmed
S/o late Md.Basheer Ahmed,
Aged about 68 years,
2) Dr.Naimunnisa W/o Dr.Mohd.Nazeer Ahmed,
Aged about 64 years,
Both R/o 25, Rail Enclave,
Sikh Road, Secunderabad – 500 009.
…Appellants/Complainants
And
1) Managing Director,
Air India, Safdarjung Airport,
Aurobindu Marg, New Delhi.
2) Reservation Manager,
Air India Office,
HACA Bhavan, Saifabad,
Hyderabad – 500 004.
…Respondents/Opposite parties
Counsel for the Appellants : Sri V.Ramu
Counsel for the Respondents : Sri K.Srinivasa Murthy
Coram :
Hon’ble Sri Justice B.N.Rao Nalla … President
and
Sri Patil Vithal Rao … Member
Monday, the Twenty Seventh day of March
Two thousand Seventeen
Oral Order : (per Hon’ble Sri Justice B.N.Rao Nalla, Hon’ble President)
***
This is an appeal filed by the Complainants dissatisfied by the orders of District Consumer Forum-II, Hyderabad dated 05.07.2013 made in CC No.306/2012 in allowing the complaint in part and directing the Opposite parties to pay compensation of Rs.5,000/- each towards physical and mental agony and Rs.1,000/- towards costs dismissing rest of theclaim granting time of one month.
2) For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as arrayed in the complaint.
3) The case of the complainants, in brief, is that the both the Complainants are related as wife and husband. Complainant No.1 is a heart-patient and had undergone coronary angiogram twice in Care Banjara Hospital, Hyderabad. Complainant No.2 is suffering from hypertension, diabetes and severe ostia arthritis of both knees. Both of them have booked tickets from Chicago to Hyderabad by Air India through their agent Azeem of World Travels Bureau on 17.02.2012 i.e., two and half months in advance for travel scheduled on 29.04.2012 by flight No.AI-126, which is a direct flight from Chicago to Hyderabad, for which, they paid Rs.74,000/-. The tickets were e-mailed to the complainants at Chicago. As per their request, the Ops confirmed two aisle seats bearing 018F and 018H as it is difficult for them to occupy the middle or window seats and easy to get-up and walk in the middle of journey.
4) They also requested for wheel chair service and made request for muslim meals consisting of rice and some non-vegetarian as wheat and wheat products do not suit them. As against which, they were given sandwiches and they have to travel half-starved effecting their health and mental balance. On 25.04.2012, when they enquired on toll-free number, it was informed that their seats have been changed from row 018F and 018H to 019F and 019H. As there is no difference in rows, they accepted it and requested to issue e-ticket. Accordingly, they asked their agent at Hyderabad to send the e-tickets with changed seat numbers. On 29.04.2012, when they reported at the airport, they were shocked to note that the seats at row 19F and 19H were allotted to someone and were offered two different middle and 19H, for which, complainant lost patience and shouted at the counter clerk who left his seat and came after 5 minutes and offered aisle seats in the 45th row which is in the back side of the aircraft and hurried them to make decision. Having no other choice, they agreed.
5) The staff at the counter behaved rudely and arrogantly without looking at the age of the complainants. They had to undergo severe mental harassment and physical trauma till they reached Hyderabad. Hence, the complaint with a prayer to direct the Ops to pay an amount of Rs.2,40,000/- for rendering deficient services and Rs.2,50,000/- for causing mental agony, stress and harassment and costs of Rs.10,000/-.
6) Opposite parties resisted the claim by way of written version contending that the complaint is not maintainable either in law or facts. The complainants are not entitled to claim deficiency of service under two heads i.e., for mental agony and compensation. They admitted the booking of tickets in advance through a travel agent. The request message was sent from agent’s system for aisle seat 18F and 18H using free sale system (system allows to free sale any seat initially, but immediately rejects if same is allotted to someone or cannot be offered in the airline terminology DK/KK-free sale, HK-confirmed, UN-unable) which is rejected by their system. This request was repeated by the agency for seat Nos.18FH for about six times and each time their system has rejected this request and communicated back to the agency system.
7) The request for wheel chair for both passengers has been provided as also the request for muslim meals. Three to four services are conducted during the duration of the flight at no additional cost. They went hungry is an imagination as food is uplifted as per the booked load plus an additional 10/15 percent for emergency and same is unused/destroyed on arrival at destination. The onus of informing the passenger about rejection of seat is on the agent as the booking is made in the agent’s computer reservation system and the rejections have been communicated to this system. This was informed to the passenger by the check-in agent politely, however, it was felt that he/she was rude and arrogant and not paid attention to the aged passenger. The nearest two aisle seats available in the aircraft were 45FH which were offered to the passengers as a very special case due to their age and seat Nos.45DE and 45JK were kept vacant. There is no deficiency in service on their part, hence, prayed to dismiss the complaint.
8) During the course of enquiry before the District Forum, in order to prove their case, the Complainants got filed the evidence affidavit of Complainant No.1 and Exs.A1 to A6 and on behalf of the Opposite parties got filed the evidence affidavit of one Meenakshi Mallik, Deputy General Manager (Commercial), Air India, Hyderabad and Ex.B1.
9) The District Forum after considering the material available on record, allowed the complaint bearing CC No.306/2012 by orders dated 05.07.2013, as stated, supra, at paragraph no.1.
10) Aggrieved by the above orders, the Appellants/Complainants preferred this appeal contending that the forum below (a) granted minimal compensation on the ground that the appellants travelled on the date of journey without appreciating the fact that they had no choice except to travel; (b) failed to appreciate the fact that they are senior citizens and got the desired seats well in advance; (c) failed to see that if cancellations or allotment of seats is at the discretion of the respondents, then there is no point in getting the seats reserved well in advance; (d) failed to see that the cancellation/allotment of seats are governed by certain established norms. Hence, prayed to allow the appeal.
11) The point that arises for consideration is whether the impugned orders as passed by the District Forum suffer from any error or irregularity or whether they are liable to be set aside, modified or interfered with, in any manner? To what relief ?
12) It is not in dispute that the appellants herein have booked the tickets for their travel from Chicago to Hyderabad well in advance through their travel agent at Hyderabad. It is also not in dispute that the request of the appellants for providing wheel chair and muslim meals is conceded to. The only dispute is that the seat numbers allotted at the first instance were changed by the respondents without any notice. To which, it is the case of the Respondents that the tickets were booked under request free sale system. In this system, the system allows free sale any seat initially, but rejects if the same is allotted to someone or cannot be offered in the airline terminology.
13) To show that their system has rejected the request made by the agent, the Respondents filed Ex.B1 and it is also their case that they have informed to the agent’s system. No piece of paper is filed in that regard to show that the same is informed to the agent. Admittedly, the agent is not made as a party to the proceeding. The respondents failed to assign any reason as to the rejection or cancellation of the appellants request for aisle seats and allotted seats at the first instance. Be that as it may, both the appellants have performed their journey on the particular day from Chicago to Hyderabad. The only difference appellants faced is change of row but the seats remained the same. Hence, in such circumstances, the compensation granted by the forum was fair and reasonable which requires no interference and there is no reason to meddle with. Accordingly, we answer the point framed for consideration at paragraph No.11 against the appellants and in favour of the respondents.
14) In the result, the appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed but in the circumstances, parties to bear their own costs.
PRESIDENT MEMBER
Dated 27.03.2017
