Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/47/2018

Chander Mohan Pathak - Complainant(s)

Versus

Air India Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

24 Apr 2019

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

                                                     =======

                                                                             

                                     

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/47/2018
Date of Institution	:	22/01/2018
Date of Decision	:	24/04/2019

 

Chander Mohan Pathak S/o Late Sh. Madan Mohan Pathak, R/o Flat No. 354, CPS Enclave, Sector 48-A, Chandigarh.

…..Complainant

V E R S U S

 

1.      Air India Limited, SCO 162-164, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh, through its Branch Manager.

 

2.      Air India Limited, Airlines House, 113, Rakabganj Gurudwara Road, New Delhi – 110001, through its Director Commercial.

 

3.      Air India Limited, Airlines House, 113, Rakabganj Gurudwara Road, New Delhi – 110001, through its Chairman and Managing Director.

…… Opposite Parties

QUORUM:	MRS.SURJEET KAUR	PRESIDING MEMBER
	DR.S.K.SARDANA	MEMBER

 

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Gaurav Bhardwaj, Counsel for Complainant.
	:	Sh. Navpreet Singh, Counsel for Opposite Parties.

 

Per Dr.S.K.Sardana, Member

1.         Adumbrated in brief, the facts necessary for the disposal of the instant Consumer Complaint are, the Complainant booked two online tickets for himself and his wife namely Mrs. Sudha Pathak for onward journey from Delhi on 17^th June, 2016 and return journey from Chicago on 14^th Nov. 2016. Being strictly vegetarians, at the time of booking the tickets, the Complainant had clearly specified, Vegetarian Hindu Meals to be served during these flights (Annexure-1). It has been alleged that during onward journey from Delhi to Chicago, they were served vegetarian meals; whereas, during return journey from Chicago to Delhi on 14^th Nov. 2016, they were served non-vegetarian lunch on board (Annexure-2). There were no stickers pasted on the meals served indicating veg/non-veg. meals. As soon as they consumed the first morsel of the meals, they realized that something was wrong with the food and noticed meat pieces in one of the dishes served. Immediately, the matter was reported to the notice of Cabin Crew Attendant as well as Cabin Crew Incharge of the Flight, who admitted their blunder and sought apologies. On demand, even the complaint book was not provided to the Complainant for lodging a Complaint about the incidence of serving wrong meals. It has been further alleged that on 23.11.2016 (Annexure-3), the Complainant lodged online Complaint regarding serving them wrong meals on board, in responses whereof vide e-mail dated 19.01.2017, Opposite Parties apologized for the inconvenience caused. Subsequently, on 23.01.2017 (Annexure-4), the Complainant wrote to Opposite Parties and sought compensation for the gross negligence and deficiency in service, but no action has been taken thereupon. The Complainant also wrote a number of letters/reminders/e-mails (Annexure-5 to 8), but to no success. With the cup of woes brimming, the Complainant has filed the instant Consumer Complaint, alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties.
2.         Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Parties seeking their version of the case.
3.         Opposite Parties contested the complaint and filed their joint reply, inter alia, admitting the basic facts of the case. It has been pleaded that the onus is on the Complainant to prove whether he was served non-veg food on board from Chicago to Delhi Sector. It has been asserted that their office bearers from Chicago, in good gesture, communicated/sent mail in response to the Complaint made by the Complainant, but in that very e-mail, their representative has apologized for the inconvenience caused to the Complainant in general terms that if such incident had occurred, then they feel sorry, but in good gesture, not otherwise or say admitting the fault, the onus is on the Complainant to prove it. The present Complaint has been filed just for the monetary gains and nothing else. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part, Opposite Parties have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4.         The parties led evidence in support of their contentions.
5.         We have gone through the entire record and have also heard the arguments addressed by the Ld. Counsel for the Parties.
6.         On perusal of the e-mail (Annexure A-4) dated 19.01.2017, we find that Opposite Parties have apologized for the inconvenience caused to the Complainant and keeping in mind the seriousness of matter, they have taken up the matter with their Caterers to improve their service standards. However, we are of the opinion that rather than taking up the matter with the Caterer, it was for the Cabin Crew to check the record before serving the meals or to ask the Complainant as to whether he wanted non-vegetarian food, vegetarian food or vegetarian-vegan food. Since there is no evidence of any such enquiry having been made from the Complainant before serving meals to him, we hold that there was gross deficiency on the part of the Opposite Parties in serving meals to the Complainant aboard the aircraft, during the course of journey.
7.         For the reasons stated hereinabove, we hold that the Opposite Parties were deficient in rendering proper services to the Complainant. Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, we partly allow the present Consumer Complaint qua Opposite Parties.  The Opposite Parties are, jointly & severally, directed as under :-

1. To pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant as compensation for deficiency in service and for causing mental agony and harassment to him;
2. To pay Rs.7,000/- to the complainant as costs of litigation.

8.         This order be complied with by the Opposite Parties within thirty days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, they shall make the payment of the amount mentioned at Sr.No.(i) above, with interest @12% p.a. from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(ii) above.
9.         The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

 

	Sd/-	Sd/-
24/04/2019	[Dr.S.K.Sardana]	[Surjeet Kaur]
	Member	Presiding Member
“Dutt”