STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION OF TELANGANA :
At HYDERABAD
FA 199 OF 2015
AGAINST
CC NO. 221 OF 2014, DISTRICT FORUM, RANGA REDDY
Between :
Garlapati Krishna Reddy,
S/o Venkat Reddy,
Aged 63 years,
Occ : Retired Govt. Employee,
R/o Flat No. 504, Hardhik Palace,
SBH ( c ) Colony,
Saidabad, Hyderabad .. Appellant/complainant
And
- Airport Manager, AIR India Ltd, Shamshabad, Hyderabad.
- General Manager (Engg), Air India Ltd, Engineering complex,
Begumpet, Hyderabad – 500 016.
- Manager Air India Ltd,
R/o 5-10-193, HACA Bhavan,
Opposite Kalanjali Show room, Hill Fort road,
Saifabad, Hyderabad – 500 004. .. Respondents/opp. parties
Counsel for the Appellant/Complainant : Sri M.Ram Gopal Reddy
Counsel for the Respondents/Opp.parties : M/s. V. Umadevi.
Coram :
Honble Sri Justice B. N. Rao Nalla … President
And
Sri Patil Vithal Rao … Member
Monday, the Twenty Third Day of October
Two Thousand Seventeen
Oral order : ( per Hon’ ble Sri Justice B.N.Rao Nalla, Hon’ble President )
***
1) This is an appeal filed under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act by the complainant to set aside the impugned order dated 30.09.2015 in CC No. 221 of 2014 on the file of the District Forum, Ranga Reddy and allow the appeal.
2) For the sake of convenience, the parties are described as arrayed in the complaint before the District Forum.
3). The case of the complainant, in brief, is that he, who, is a retired Government employee, along with his wife and grand-daughter aged 1 ½ years booked tickets to go to USA from Hyderabad by AIR India flight AI-127 upto Delhi on 16.09.2013 which was scheduled to fly at 8.55 pm. They reached Airport at 7.20 pm, allowed into the Airport at 7.25 pm, reached check-in counters at 7.30 pm and found only 3 counters each with 7 to 8 passengers and each passenger was taking about 5 to 10 minutes. As the counter incharge went away and did not return. They moved to another counter meant for Mumbai flight at 8.20 pm where they were informed that their tickets were deleted with an endorsement due to late in reporting by 8.23m, even though, he was waiting since 15 minutes and for not producing authorization/consent letter of the parents to bring the child though it was shown to them. They reached Airport 1 ½ hours in advance. The incident had occurred due to lethargic check-in of passengers by Airport staff and hence he had to pay Rs.26,000/- towards additional payment to have his journey rescheduled on 17.09.0213, hence the complaint to direct the opposite parties to repay the amount of Rs.26,000/- paid for rescheduling the tickets, to pay compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for mental agony and costs of Rs.5,000/-.
4). The opposite parties resisted the above complaint by way of written version, while admitting that the complainants booked tickets to go to USA by flight AI 127 , contending that the complainant reported late at 20.23 hours and also did not produce the authorization or consent letter of the parents to take the child, as per the conditions they have to check-in at-least 3 hours prior to scheduled time of departure, the check-in counter closes one hour prior to the schedule time and hence they were not accepted for the flight. On 16.09.2013, 18 check-in counters were opened. Complainant was checked in at 14.15 hours itself and seat no. 18B/18C were given. While they were waiting for the passengers in person to check in their baggage, the complainant failed to report before 19.55 hours and they were de-checked from the system at 20.18 or 20.19 hours at the time of finalizing the documents. On the next day, fresh tickets were issued on payment of additional charge of Rs.26,000/- towards date change penalty and no show charges and he reported well in advance with all necessary documents. There is no deficiency in service or negligence on their part and hence prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
6) During the course of enquiry before the District Forum, in order to prove his case, the complainant filed his evidence affidavit and got marked Ex.A1 to A-11 and the opposite parties got marked Ex. B-1 to B-4. Heard both sides.
7) The District Forum, after considering the material available on record, dismissed the complaint.
8) Aggrieved by the said order, the unsuccessful complainant preferred this appeal before this Commission.
9) Both sides have advanced their arguments reiterating the contents in the appeal grounds, rebuttal thereof along with written arguments and heard both of them.
10) The points that arise for consideration are,
(i) Whether the impugned order as passed by the District Forum suffers from any error or irregularity or whether it is liable to be set aside, modified or interfered with, in any manner?
(ii) To what relief ?
11). Point No.1 :
There is no dispute that the appellant/complainant along with his wife and grand-daughter booked tickets to travel to USA from Hyderabad on 16.09.2013 by A1 -127 flight which was scheduled to fly at 8.55 pm. There is also no dispute that they were not permitted to travel on that day on the ground that they reported late at 20.23 hours and also authorization or consent letter of the parents of the child was not produced before the Airport authorities.
12) The District Forum dismissed the complaint on the ground that the appellant/complainant failed to prove that they have reported at the appropriate counter meant for his flight before 7.55 pm on 16.09.2013 and since the appellant/complainant did not request to produce CCTV footages within the reasonable period of 90 days, the respondents/opposite parties could not produce the same since after 90 days they could not be retained and hence there is no negligence or deficiency in service on the part of the respondents/opposite parties.
13) Now, the point to be determined is, whether the appellant/complainant reported late or not. Admittedly, the schedule time of the flight was 8.55 pm on 16.09.2017. The contention of the appellant/complainant is that they reached the Airport at 7.25 pm, reached the check in counter at about 7.30 pm and found only 3 counters and incharge of one of the counters went away and did not return and he moved to another counter meant for Bombay flight where he took 10 minutes for verification of tickets in the computer and informed that the tickets were deleted. Whereas, the respondents authorities refuted that there are 18 counters on that day and the appellant/ complainant did not report at check in counter by 19.55 hours, they were de-checked from the system at 20.18 or 20.19 hours at the time of finalizing the documents. They further contended that the appellant/ complainant had no reasons to go to the counter meant for Bombay flight and also to wait there till 8 pm especially when no staff was available at the counter. It is his duty presenting himself at the check-in counter at the proper time. Ex.A-6 shows that the appellant/complainant reported late at the check-in counter at 20.23 hours. As per Ex. B-4 terms and conditions of Air India, the appellant/complainant should report at check in counter at least 3 hours prior to departure. It appears, he did not do so. The respondent/opposite party expressed their inability to produce the CCTV footage since the said request was made after 15 months delay , which, are retained only within 90 days, after which, they are re-written erasing the original footage. However, when some one makes a request for such CCTV footage within time they will produce and care will be taken that they are not erased, but, the appellant/complainant has not made any such request at the correct time and hence they could not be able to produce the same. The record reveals that the appellant/complainant paid extra money of Rs.26,000/- without any protest and re-scheduled his journey, reported on time checked-in and taken on flight on 17.09.2017. The respondents/opposite parties categorically stated that check-in counter closes one hour prior to the schedule time. The above facts would show that the appellant failed to prove that he went to the Airport within the time as per the rules and there is negligence on the part of the respondents/opposite parties.
14). The appellant/complainant relied on Tomaso Bruno and another Vs. State of U.P., reported in Crl. Appeal No. 142 of 20156 ( arising out of S.L.P. (Crl. )No. 1156 of 2013 on the file of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, wherein, it was held that “ if a party in possession of best evidence which will throw light in controversy withholds it, the Court can draw an adverse inference against him notwithstanding that the onus of providing dos not lie on him. But, here, in the case on hand, the respondents/opposite parties have expressed their inability to produce the CCTV footages beyond 90 days. The CCTV footages were asked after 15 months. Rebutting the same, the appellant/ complainant did not place before this Commission in support of their claim that the footages beyond 15 months can be retained.
15). After considering the foregoing facts and circumstances and also having regard to the contentions raised on behalf of the appellant/ complainant and the respondents/opposite parties, this Commission is of the view that there is no negligence or deficiency in service on the part of the respondents/opposite parties and that there is no infirmity or irregularity in the order passed by the District Forum and that there are no merits in the appeal and hence it is liable to be dismissed.
16). Point No. 2 :
In the result, the appeal is dismissed confirming the impugned order passed by the District Forum. There shall be no order as to costs.
PRESIDENT MEMBER Dated : 23.10.2017.
