Date of filing : 09/05/2016
Order no. 11
The fact of the case according to the complainant, in brief, is that on 23.08.2014 the complainant booked Air India Ticket having serial no.098-5455568649 with Air India Limited, 39M, Chittaranjan Avenue, Kolkata-700012 (o.p.1) through M/s Subhyatra, 6 Lyons Range, Kolkata-1 (o.p.2) for onward journey in business class from Kolkata to Bombay to Nu York on 26.08.2014 and 27.08.2014 for return journey in economy class from Nu York to Bombay to Kolkata on 29.08.2014 and 30.08.2014 on payment of Rs.1,64,559/-. For onward journey complainant was to avail Flight No. A1 676 at 6 a.m. for journey from Kolkata to Mumbai. Complainant while waiting for the flight in the departure lounge one personnel of the o.p.1 has apprised him that due to non availability of the scheduled air craft which carries accommodation of business class as well as economy class complainant had been requested to avail another flight which carries economy class only. Difference of fare between business class and economy class will be refunded later on and accordingly the ticket of onward journey from Kolkata to Mumbai has been endorsed for economy class journey only by writing on the ticket with pen and requesting the passengers orally and individually. However, complainant availed the remaining package journey and after returning from the said journey complainant submitted refund application on 22.09.2014 through o.p.3, which had been handled by o.p.1 for two months and ten days and ultimately rejected on 03.12.2014 by writing in a language of their own. Rejection memo itself speaks for refund to passenger by amount of Rs.13,316/- but o.p.1 thyself denied at the time of refund which was earlier assured at time of rescheduling of flight. O.ps assurance of payment and deeds of rejection made the complainant disappointed and dishonored and such opportunistic attitude on the part of the o.p. leads only to unfair trade practice for the purpose of their own.
Being aggrieved with the poor service and attitude of the o.p-1, complainant lodged this complaint praying direction upon the o.p.1 for refund of Rs.13,316/- with compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- for harassment and mental agony and with litigation cost as the Forum may deem fit.
O.p. contested the case by filing w/v and denied all material allegations of the complaint. O.p.1 stated the material facts for the purpose of proper and effectual adjudication of the matter. Complainant booked to travel Kolkata/Mumbai/Nu York by Air India flight AI-676 of 26.08.2014 from Kolkata to Mumbai and AI-191 of 27.08.2014 from Mumbai to Nu York in Business Class while returning by AI-144 of 29.08.2014 from Nu York to Mumbai and AI-776 of 30.08.2014 from Mumbai to Kolkata in Economy Class. The ticket no.098-545558649 was issued to the complainant by Riya Travel & Tours (India) Pvt. Ltd. at Mumbai against a total consideration of Rs.1,63,837/-. O.p.1 generally operated a mixed class aircraft in the Kolkata-Mumbai sector which consists of economy class and business class seats, however on the date ie, on 26.08.2014 there was a technical snag in that mixed class configured aircraft and as such the said sector was serviced by an all economy class aircraft on that day. Due to the technical snag the mixed class aircraft was not fit for the flight. It is stated that the inability to operate the mixed class flight was due to engineering/technical reason which was force majeure i.e. extraordinary circumstances(s) beyond control of o.p.1 and to maintain on time departure of flight AI-676 of 26.08.2014 from Kolkata to Mumbai. It is also stated that as soon as the error was detected the officers of the o.p. had approached every passenger including the complainant and regretted for the error and inconvenience. On the facts and circumstances stated above, the o.p.1 stated that the instant complaint is totally misconceived, speculative, unmeritorious, vague and untenable in law as there was no cause of action against the o.ps and the complainant failed to prove any deficiency in service on the part of the o.ps. as such complaint should be dismissed in limine.
On the basis of the pleadings of the respective parties following points are to be decided :-
- Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the o.p.s ?
- Whether the complainant will be entitled to get the relief as prayed for ?
Decision with reasons :-
All the points are taken up together for the sake of brevity and avoidance of repetition of facts.
Considering the submissions of the respective parties and documents on record it is an admitted fact that complainant had proceeded from Mumbai to Nu York by business class and returned from Nu York to Kolkata via Mumbai in economy class. It is also an admitted fact that in the Kolkata –Mumbai sector a specific aircraft used to fly, which contains both business class and economy class accommodation. However on 26.08.2014 the said aircraft had been ascertained with unidentified technical snag for which the said aircraft was not fit for the flight at that point of time. Therefore, another flight which was full of economy class accommodation was taken into place. Complainant paid the price for business class and he was compelled to avail economy class of journey from Kolkata to Mumbai. Again complainant was assured of refund of fare on the date of journey at the time of rescheduling of aircraft but it was rejected on 03.12.2014 under refund order no. 0500696065 where the reason of rejection had been noted in their own abbreviated phrase probably be realized by their own language. In the said rejection memo o.p.1 noted the refund amount as Rs.13,316/- against ticket no. of the complainant.
Rejection memo itself speaks for refund to passengers by an amount of Rs. 13,316/- but o.p. 1 denied at the time of refund which was earlier assured at time of rescheduling of flight. O.p.s assurance of payment and anomalous deeds of rejection made the complainant disappointed. This is no doubt an opportunistic attitude on the part of the o.p. which is undesirable for the purpose of their own.
From the submission of the parties it is evident that complainant had accommodated with the o.p. 1 but o.p. 1 was always distracted from their pre-assured service condition as warranted earlier.
With the above points in view we hold that there is deficiency in service on the part of the o.p.1 and complainant is entitled to get relief against such deficiency.
Hence, it is ordered
that the case no. CC/186/2016 is allowed on contest with cost against o.p. 1 and ex-parte without cost against other o.p.s. O.p. 1 is directed to refund Rs.13,316/- (Rupees thirteen thousand and three hundred sixteen) only with compensation of Rs. 5,000/-(Rupees five thousand) only for harassment and mental agony and litigation cost of Rs. 3,000/- (Rupees three thousand) only to the complainant within 30 days from the date of communication of this order, i.d. an interest @10% p.a. shall accrue over the entire sum due to the credit of the complainant till full realization.
Supply certified copy of this order to the parties free of cost.
