BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.
Complaint No.490 of 2016
Date of Instt. 20.12.2016
Date of Decision: 27.11.2018
Munish Kumar aged about 28 years S/o Sh. Naresh Kumar R/o 484/6, Shaheed Babu Labh Singh Nagar, Jalandhar.
..........Complainant
Versus
1. AIR INDIA LTD, Airlines House 113, Gurudwara Rakabganj Road, New Delhi 110001, Through its MD/Chairman/Authorized Signatory.
2. M.R. TOURS & TRAVELS, 14 Grand Mall, Near Hotel Raddison, Jalandhar Through its Partner/Authorized Signatory.
….….. Opposite Parties
Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.
Before: Sh. Karnail Singh (President)
Smt. Harvimal Dogra (Member)
Present: Sh. Mandeep Singh, Adv Counsel for the Complainant.
Sh. Karan Seth, Adv and Sh. Umesh Dhingra, Adv Counsels for the OP.
None for the OP No.2.
Order
Karnail Singh (President)
1. This complaint has been presented by the complainant, wherein alleged that the complainant is employed as Senior Research Fellow in Research Project, Sponsored by Board of Research in Nuclear Science under Department of Atomic Energy, Govt. of India in Physics Department, DAV College, Jalandhar and also pursuing Ph. D. from IKGPTU, Jalandhar. The OP No.1 is an airline company providing services of air traveling through out India and abroad. The OP No.2 is providing services of booking of air ticket of OP No.1 on commission basis.
2. That the complainant has planned to travel by air from New Delhi to Taiwan up and down ticket and accordingly on 14.10.2016, the complainant got booked up and return air ticket bearing No.098YCE2GZ in his name, through the OP No.2, from his office situated at Jalandhar and its cost has been paid a sum of Rs.45,900/- for return ticket fair. After attending scientific event Geo-Hazards Research Symposium in the memory of prof. Tsanyao Frank Yang held at Taipei, Taiwan on 17 October to 20th October, 2016 for presenting his paper on the topic “Radiation and Medical Geo-Hazards”, the complainant came to Airport at Taipei for boarding the flight to Hong Kong on 21.10.2016, the flight No.HX-253 and the said flight got delayed due to bad weather Haima Typhoon, the flight delayed certificate was also issued to the complainant. Due to the above said delayed flight, the complainant reached the Hong Kong Airport late in time and the connected flight from Hong Kong to New Delhi i.e. Flight No.A1 317 had departed Hong Kong Airport without waiting the complainant's flight HX 253. Due to the missing of connecting flight A1 317, the complainant has suffered a lot and no accommodation, meals and alternative flight for New Delhi was provided by the OP No.1 to the complainant. The complainant also received tourist visa at Hong Kong and he waited at airport for about 34 hours at the assurance of the authorities of OP No.1 for providing him alternative flight 22.50, but at least the OP No.1 did not oblige to the complainant and having no alternative, the complainant got booked an other flight from Hong Kong to New Delhi of Singapore Airlines through his friend and paid Rs.33,200/- on 22.10.2016 and boarded the same on 23.10.2016 and reached New Delhi Airport, where he made a complaint regarding the unfair trade practice and deficiency in services of OP No.1 for not providing the accommodation etc.
3. That due to the above said deficiency in services, unfair trade practice and unprofessional business dealing of the OPs, the complainant has suffered great mental tension, harassment and loss of time in the hands of the OPs. The complainant as well as his family members remained under stress, tension and agony during the entire period and also caused physical harassment to the complainant and as such, necessity arose to file the present complaint with the prayer that the complaint of the complainant may be accepted and OPs be directed to immediately refund the amount of Rs.33,200/- of air ticket and Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation for mental tension, harassment and agony suffered by the complainant and be also directed to pay Rs.10,000/- as cost of the complaint.
4. Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs and accordingly, OP No.1 appeared through its counsel and filed reply, whereby contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that this Forum has got no jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint. It is further averred that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP No.1 and as such, the present complaint is not maintainable against the OP No.1. In fact, the complainant had to travel from Taipei to Hong Kong by Hong Kong airlines on 21.10.2016 bearing flight No.HX 253 and then from Hong Kong to Delhi by flight of Air India/OP No.1 bearing flight No.A1 317. However, on that day due to severe typhoon named HAIMA hitting Hong Kong on 21.10.2016, the flight from Taipei to Hong Kong of Hong Kong Airlines was delayed and could not reach Hong Kong as a result of which the complainant missed the flight of OP No.1 No.A1 317. It is pertinent to mention here that on that day, the OP No.1 also delayed the flight A1- 317 by 06:30 hrs to accommodate and help the passengers, who were unable to reach Hong Kong timely, but the flight of the complainant of Hong Kong Airlines did not reach and the complainant was unable to even board the delayed flight No.A1 317 of OP No.1. Therefore, the OP No.1 is not liable at all. The delaye was caused by Hong Kong Airlines due to severe typhoon as such it is the obligation of Hong Kong Airlines to arrange for transportation etc. and to provide services to the complainant. Under law, the OP No.1 is not liable to compensate the complainant and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP No.1. Even otherwise, the circumstances and reasons for the delay of the flight were beyond the control of the Airline, which is due to severe typhoon HAIMA hitting Hong Kong due to which the complainant missed flight No.A1 317 of OP No.1. The flight was not delayed just for the sweet will or discretion of anyone, but obviously for the safety of passengers, which is paramount. Under above said facts and circumstances, the OP No.1 cannot be held guilty of committing any negligence or deficient service, hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed. It is further averred that the complaint is bad for mis-joinder of necessary party i.e. the Hong Kong Airline, who caused the delay is a necessary party in this complaint. On merits, the purchase of ticket and missing of the flight etc. are not denied, but the other allegations as made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly prayed that the complaint of the complainant is without merits and the same may be dismissed.
5. OP No.2 filed its separate written reply and contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the present complaint is not maintainable in the eyes of law and the same has not been properly verified as required under the provision of Consumer Protection Act and further alleged that the complaint is vague and evasive and further submitted that the ticket was never issued by the OP No.2, but only bill was issued by the OP No.2. On merits, all the allegations as made in the complaint are controverted and lastly submitted that the complaint of the complainant is without merits and the same may be dismissed.
6. In order to prove the case of the complainant, the counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of the complainant Ex.CA along with some documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-5 and closed the evidence.
7. Similarly, counsel for the OP No.1 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.OP1/A and one document Ex.OP-1/1 and closed the evidence.
8. We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant as well as counsel for the OP No.1 and also gone through the case file very minutely.
9. We find from the pleadings of the party that the complainant has not directly asked for any compensation from OP No.2 because the role of the OP No.2 is only to book a ticket on payment and further ticket is to issue by the office of the concerned Airline and similarly happened in this case a payment was made by the complainant to OP No.2 and ticket was issued by the OP No.1 and copy of the ticket is available on the file Ex.C-1. There is no dispute that the said ticket was got booked by the complainant after making a requisite air charges and admittedly, the complainant traveled from Delhi to Hong Kong and then from Hong Kong to Taipei and similarly on 21.11.2016, the complainant has to depart from Taipei to Hong Kong, but due to some natural reasons, the flight was delayed and admittedly, the connected flight was departed prior to reaching the complainant at Singapore Airport and due to that reason, the flight from Singapore to Delhi i.e. Flight No.A1 317 Air India was missed and it is also admitted that thereafter the complainant lodged a complaint, which is Ex.C-4 at Airport Delhi in the office of Air India, but no compensation was provided to the complainant and accordingly, the complainant filed the instant complaint.
10. Now, we have to adjudge whether there is a fault on the part of the complainant or Air India i.e. OP No.1. No doubt, the OP No.1/Air India took a plea in its written statement that this Forum has no jurisdiction, but in order to meet out this argument, the learned counsel for the OP No.1 miserably failed to give satisfactory reply how this Forum has no jurisdiction because when the ticket was got booked from the Jalandhar. Further, the OP No.1 took a plea that there is no fault on the part of the OP No.1/Air India because the OP No.1 waited for connected flight coming from Hong Kong i.e. Hong Kong Airline, which was delayed due to severe typhoon HAIMA hitting Hong Kong on 21.10.2016 and after waiting long time, the flight No.A1 317 of OP No.1 departed from Hong Kong and there was no intentionally causing any harassment to the complainant rather the said harassment was caused due to delay on the part of the Hong Kong Airlines and therefore, OP No.1 is not liable to pay compensation in any manner to the complainant.
11. We have sympathetically considered the plea taken by the OP No.1/Air India and find that there is no directly or indirectly fault on the part of the complainant because the complainant could not get the connected flight of Air India/OP No.1 due to delay of the flight No.HX 253 of Hong Kong Airline. First of all, it is admitted fact that the delay on the part of Hong Kong Airline is not intentionally rather due to natural reason i.e. severe typhoon HAIMA hitting Hong Kong on the day of flight and there is no doubt that the ticket so purchased by the complainant is according to the timing of connecting flight and it is admitted by OP No.1 in its reply that the OP No.1 waited by 6:30 hrs to the connected flight from Hong Kong and then departed from Hong Kong, the reason is also mentioned by OP No.1 in its reply. So, when the OP No.1 is aware that the Hong Kong Airline flight is delaying due to natural severe typhoon HAIMA hitting Hong Kong, then it is the duty of the OP No.1/Air India to make arrangement for alternative flight to the complainant, but the official of the OP No.1 at Hong Kong did not provide proper services and facility to the complainant and even not got arranged an alternative flight from Hong Kong to Delhi rather the complainant himself got purchased a ticket of an other airline i.e. Singapore Airline, after spending an other amount of Rs.33,200/-. So, from all the angles, it is established that there is a negligence for not providing appropriate services to the complainant as well as negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the OP No.1, therefore, we find that the complainant is entitled for the relief claimed.
12. As an upshot of our above detailed discussion, the complaint of the complainant is partly accepted qua OP No.1 and accordingly, the OP No.1 is directed to pay the air ticket price of Rs.33,200/- to the complainant and further OP No.1 is directed to pay compensation to the complainant for mental and physical harassment, to the tune of Rs.25,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.5000/-. The entire compliance be made within one month from the date of receipt of the copy of order. This complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.
13. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.
Dated Harvimal Dogra Karnail Singh
27.11.2018 Member President
