Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/529/2016

Harish Mehta - Complainant(s)

Versus

Air India Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

In person

05 Dec 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

============

Consumer Complaint  No	:	529 of 2016
Date  of  Institution	:	19.7.2016
Date   of   Decision	:	5.12.2016

 

 

 

 

 

Harish Mehta House No.1269, Sector 5, Panchkula 134113 (Haryana).

 

 

….Complainant

Vs.

 

1. The Minister, Government of India, Department of Civil Aviation Room No.274, B-Block, Rajiv Gandhi Bhavan, Safdarjung Airport, Aurobindo Marg, New Delhi 110003.

 

2. The Chairman & Managing Director, Air India Ltd. Airlines House 2^nd floor, 113, Gurudwara Rakabgunj Road, New Delhi 110001.

 

3. The Station Manager, Air India, SCO No.162-164, Sector 34A, Chandigarh 160 034.

 

…… Opposite Parties 

 

BEFORE:  

 

DR. MANJIT SINGH                  PRESIDENT

MRS.SURJEET KAUR             PRESIDING MEMBER

SH. SURESH KUMAR SARDANA     MEMBER

 

 

 

For Complainant	:	Complainant in person.
For OP	:	Sh. S.R. Chaudhuri, Adv.

 

 

PER SURESH KUMAR SARDANA, MEMBER

 

 

 

                The facts, in brief, are that the complainant booked two e-ticket of Air India from Chandigarh for travelling from Chennai to Port Blair and from Port Blair to Chennai for Rs.42,788/-. The complainant also booked two ticket of  flight of Indigo  from Delhi to Chennai for Rs.7,412/- and Spice Jet SG 104 from Chennai to Delhi for Rs.8,570/-  and also booked tickets of Shatabdi Express from Chandigarh to New Delhi and back for Rs.2,560/-. The grievance of the complainant is that the Air India on 1.5.2016 re-scheduled its flight from Portblair to Chennai  owing to which the complainant has to modify his booked ticket from Chennai to New Delhi by paying extra amount of Rs.6,610/-. Not only this due sudden reschdule time of Air India Flight the complainant has to get cancelled the ticket of Shatabdi express from New Delhi to Chandigarh with deduction of Rs.650/-, which caused not only mental agony and physical harassment to the complainant but also financial loss. The complainant took the matter with the Ops but to no avail.  Hence this complaint has been filed alleging deficiecy on the part of the OPs.

2.      Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite  Parties, seeking their version of the case.
3.      The OPs filed their written statement in which while admitting the factual matrix of the case stated that the carrier undertakes to use its efforts to carry paxes and his/her baggage wit reasonable dispatch and to adhere to published schedules in effect on the date of travel. However, airlines are entitled to revised any fares and flight schedules at any time and time to time without prior notice.   In the instant case the complainant received e-message on 8:23 pm on 1.5.2016 which was 12 hrs before of the originally fixed departure time of 08:10 hrs on May 1, 2016. The rescheduled departure time was 13:40 hrs on May 2,2016. It is asserted that the time period of 12 hurs was good enough for readjustment. It can niether be called sudden or shocking.  Not only this OPs has also expressed regret for inconvenience. The remaining allegations were denied, being false. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service on its part, a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.
4.                 The complainant has filed a rejoinder, wherein he has reiterated all the averments, contained in the complaint, and repudiated those, contained in the written version of Opposite Parties.
5.      Parties were permitted to place their respective evidence on record, in support of their contentions.
6.      We have heard the complainant in person and learned counsel for the Opposite parties and have perused the record.
7.      On perusal of document placed on record by the Ops Annexure R1/A+B, we find that reschedule of a flight is the prerogative of airlines vide terms and conditions of Travel (Pax and baggage).  In this case the flight was rescheduled under IOCE Notification 1777 and 1778 (dated 1.5.2016), which provided a sufficient long advance notice for adjustment to the complainant. We also find that the complainant had booked his flights independently of each other.  There is no commitment on the part of the OPs to provide connection with spice jet Flight SG 108 from Chennai to New Delhi. Also Satabdi tickets from New Delhi to Chandigarh had no connection with the Air India.  The OPs have  duly mentoined the reason to the complainant in Annexure R-2/A+B for delay of the flight, which is reproduced as under:-

 “The flt. Operation was reschduled as per IOCC notification 1777&1778 dated 1.5.2016 with chanage of a/c equipment and revised arrival/departure ex-IXZ: 1200/1240.”

8.      Moreover the OPs took the complainant to its Destination at Chennai.  Had  the complainant not reached to the destination though with late schedule through the flight of the OPs then he had a good case. But as said above the complainant reached to its destination through the flight of the OPs. Hence, we find no deficiency on the part of the OPs.  Thus, the complaint deserves to be dismissed.
9.      For the reasons recorded, above the complaint of the complainant is dismissed with no order as to costs.
10.      The certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of charge, after which the file be consigned.

Announced

5.12.2016                       DR.                sd/-

(SURJEET KAUR)

PRESIDING MEMBER

 

Sd/-

 (SURESH KUMAR SARDANA)

MEMBER