DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOZHIKODE

PRESENT   : Sri. P.C. PAULACHEN, M.Com, LLB             : PRESIDENT

                  Sri.V. BALAKRISHNAN, M Tech, MBA, LL.B, FIE: MEMBER

Tuesday   the 12th  day of October   2021

CC No. 39/2017

Complainant

1. Marapotta Aboobacker                                                  

Shelter House, Periyambalam,

      Pulikkal (P.O),

      Malappuram -  673 637.

Opposite Parties

1. Air India Limited

Eroth Centre, 5/2521, Bank Road,

Kozhikode – 673 001.

2. Good Hope Travels

Standard Service Tower

C – 217/475 CityTower, Mavoor Road

Kozhikode – 673 004.

(OP1 – By Adv. Mohammed Zahir & Adv. Domnic Antony)

(OP2 – Exparte).

ORDER

By Sri. P.C. PAULACHEN  – PRESIDENT.

        This is a complaint filed under  Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

        2. The case of the complainant, in brief, is as follows:

            On 21/05/2016 the complainant booked 8 seats in flight No. A1-317 for travelling from Delhi to Mumbai scheduled to fly on 16/09/2016 at 11.00 pm. The tickets were booked through the supplemental 2nd opposite party. This booking was for return journey after completion of 6 days of LTC tour programme to Himachal Pradesh by the complainant and 7 others. As per the schedule, all of them reported at the Delhi Airport at 8 pm 16/09/2016. After spending a long time in the queue, they were asked to meet one supervisor Sri. Sharma. At 10.30 pm Sri. Sharma told them that due to over booking of tickets, seats were not available for them in travelling in the said flight and offered seats for  the next flight A1-349 which would take off at 4 am on 17/09/2016. Then the complainant explained the possibility of missing their connection flight A1-581 from Mumbai to Kozhikode which would take off at 6.30 am on 17/09/2016. Then Sri. Sharma offered the boarding pass for flight No.A1-581 from Delhi itself assuring that the said flight would not take off without the complainant and the co passengers accompanying him  due to the issuing of boarding pass. The complainant and the others reached Mumbai at 6.30 am by flight No. A1-349 and rushed to departure section. But it was found that the counter for flight No.A1-581 was closed. The complainant and others were forced  to run pillar to pillar carrying heavy luggage. However, because of the help of Air India officials they reached Coimbatore at 2.30 pm in flight No. A1-657. From Coimbatore to Kozhikode travelling was by road which took 6 hours and they reached Kozhikode airport at 10.30 pm. In fact, Sri. Sharma was cheating them. They had to suffer too much hurdles in the journey. All of them are aged persons working in Government Polytechnic College, Kozhikode. They scheduled the journey 4 months ago so as to participate in a wedding ceremony in their family. All the sufferings were due to the denial of seat in flight No.A1-317. Though the complainant sent written complaints to the Vigilance Department and to the manager of the Kozhikode branch office of the 1st opposite party, there was no response. The complainant, on behalf of himself  and seven co- passengers, seeks to realise a total compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- from the 1st opposite party. 

3.     Supplemental 2nd opposite party was impleaded as per order dated 18/09/2017 in IA. 24/2017.

4.     The 1st opposite party resisted the complaint and filed version. Supplemental 2^nd  opposite party was set ex-parte. 

5.     The contentions of the 1st opposite party, in brief, are as follows: This commission lacks jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. The averment that on 16/09/2016 the complainant and other passengers reported at the  counter of the Air India in Delhi Airport at  8 pm is not correct and hence denied. The averment that  supervisor Sri. Sharma asked the complainant and others to wait as there were problems relating to over booking and the further allegation  that they could not board  the flight as there were  no seats for them is without any basis and hence denied. Air India had assured the complainant and others that they would be boarded in flight No.A1-349 that was scheduled to travel on 17/09/2016 at 4 a m  as an alternative. They had taken all necessary steps to arrange an alternative mode of transportation due to over booking of flight No.A1-317. The Air India never gave any assurance to the complainant that they would not miss the connection flight. As the complainant and the others failed to board the connection flight, they were offered flight to Coimbatore and it was assured that arrangements would be made for their travel from Coimbatore to Kozhikode and they availed it.  Thus the Air India  had taken all necessary steps to provide an alternative travel arrangement. The 1^st  opposite party is not liable to compensate the complainant. None of the other passengers is arrayed as complainants in the complaint.  With  the above contentions, the 1^st  opposite party prays for dismissal of the complaint.

6. The points that arise for determination  in this case are:

           (1) Whether the complaint is maintainable ? 

           (2) Whether there was any deficiency of service from the

                part of the 1st  opposite party ? 

         (3) Whether the claim for compensation is allowable ? If so,

              what is the quantum? 

          (4) Reliefs and costs .

7. Evidence  consists of the oral evidence PW1  and Exhibits A1 to A3 on the side of the complainant.  No evidence was let in by the  opposite parties.

        8. Heard both sides .

        9. Point No.1 :   The contention of 1st  opposite party is that this commission lacks jurisdiction to entertain the complaint since the cause of action has arisen outside the jurisdiction of  this commission. The contention is that the cause of action has  arisen at New Delhi which is beyond the jurisdiction of this commission and therefore the complaint is liable to be dismissed as not maintainable. But it may be noted that the office of the opposite parties is situated at Kozhikode,  which is within the local limits of the jurisdiction of this commission.  The ticket booking for the travel was done by the complainant from Kozhikode. The tickets were booked through  the 2^nd  opposite party. The destination point of the return journey was Kozhikode. Thus a major part of the cause action  has arisen at Kozhikode which is within the territorial jurisdiction of this commission. For the aforesaid reasons, this commission has ample jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.

10. Another contention is that complaint is bad for non-joinder of the passengers who had accompanied the complainant. It is true that the  persons who travelled along with the complainant are not in the party array and the complaint is filed on behalf of them also. It was the complainant who purchased the tickets for himself and for the co- passengers. So he is competent to maintain the complaint. They are having the same interest and they have duly authorised the complainant to file the complaint. Along with the complaint, the complainant has produced their written authorisation. Therefore the contention of the  1st opposite party  in this regard is not sustainable.

11.  According to the definition of Consumer in Section 2(1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, a person who hires or avails of any services for consideration is a consumer. Since the complainant has availed of service from the opposite parties for consideration, he is definitely a consumer falling under section 2(1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  The complainant alleges that he and seven other  passengers who accompanied him were  denied seats in the flight in spite of having confirmed tickets.   If the allegation is proved to be true, it is a deficiency in service from the side of the 1st opposite party. So the grievance of the complainant will come under Section  2 (1) (c) (g) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The complaint is  perfectly maintainable.  Point found accordingly.

12. Points  2 and 3 : These points can be considered together for the sake of convenience. The complainant, on behalf of himself and seven  other co-passengers, seeks compensation to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/- from the 1st opposite party  alleging deficiency of service due to denial of seats in flight No.A1-317 in spite of having confirmed tickets with them.

13.  In order to substantiate his case, the complainant got himself examined as PW1 and produced and marked Exhibits A1 to A3 documents. PW1 has filed proof affidavit and deposed in terms of the averments in the complaint. Ext.A1 is the copy of the Civil Aviation Requirements Section 3 – Air Transport Series ‘M’ Part IV   issued by Director General of Civil Aviation, Ext. A2 is the e-ticket copies and Ext.A3 is the boarding pass copies.

14. It is an admitted fact that on 21/05/2016, the complainant booked eight  seats in flight No.A1-317 for traveling from Delhi to Mumbai scheduled to fly on 16/09/2016 at 11 pm. This is further evidenced by Ext.A2. PW1 has asserted that though they had reported at Delhi Airport at 8 pm on 16/09/2016, the Air India officials denied them seats in the above flight due to over booking of tickets. However, they were offered seats in the next flight A1-319 which was scheduled to fly at 4 p m on the next day i.e, 17/09/2016. Boarding pass for the connection flight from Mumbai to Kozhikode in flight No.A1-581 was also offered to them. They reached Mumbai at 6.30 am by flight No.A1-349, but by that time the counter for flight No.A1-581 was closed and they could not board the   connection flight.  With the help of Air India officials they reached Coimbatore at 2.30 pm in another flight bearing No.A1-657 and from there to Kozhikode by road and reached the Airport at Kozhikode at 10.30 pm.

15. There is no serious dispute to the fact that seats were denied to the complainant and others in flight No.A1-317 due to over booking in spite of having confirmed tickets with them.  It has come out in evidence that the complainant and others reported at the counter of Air India in Delhi Airport in time.   Except for a vague denial of this fact in the version filed by the 1st opposite party,  there is nothing to show that  the complainant and others had not reported for the flight well within the specified time  ahead of  the departure of the flight. The facts alleged in the complaint are not specifically denied by the 1st opposite party in the version. There is only a vague denial. No contra evidence is also let in by the 1st opposite party. It has come out in  evidence that at the time of booking the tickets nearly 4 months prior to the travel,  the complainant and others were the first eight to book tickets of flight No.A1-317. There was no justification for denying the seats for the confirmed tickets which were booked nearly four months ago.  The act of the 1st opposite party amounts to  deficiency of service.

 16.  The facilities and compensation to be provided to the passengers by airlines due to denied boarding, cancellation of fights and delays in flights etc  are dealt with  in Ext.A1. Clause 3:2:1  of Ext.A1 deals with denied  boarding. The said Clause reads as follows

 When the number of passengers, who have been given confirmed bookings for travel on the flight and who have reported for the flight well within the specified time  ahead of the departure of the flight, are more than the number of seats available, an airline must first ask for volunteers to give up their seats so as to make seats available for other booked passengers to travel on the flight, in exchange of such benefits/facilities as the same airline, at its own discretion, may wish to offer, provided airports concerned have dedicated check-in facilities/gate areas which make it practical for the airline to do so .

 Clause 3:2:2 reads as follows

 If the boarding is denied due to condition stated at Para 3:2:1 to passengers against their will, the airline shall not be liable for any compensation in case  alternative flight  is arranged that is scheduled to depart within one hour of the original schedule departure time of the initial reservation. Failing to do so, the airline shall compensate the passengers as per the following provisions:

a)  An amount equal to 200% of booked one-way basic fare plus airline fuel charge, subject to maximum of INR 10,000/-, in case  airline arranges alternate flight that is scheduled to depart within the  24 hours of the booked scheduled departure.

  …………………………………………………………………………………

 ………………………………………………………………………………..

        16. As far as the complainant and the passengers accompanying him are concerned, the Air India had arranged alternate flight that is scheduled to depart within 24 hours of the booked scheduled departure. Thereafter taxi was arranged to transport them from Coimbatore to Kozhikode . Therefore an amount equal to 200 % of the booked one-way basic fare plus airline fuel charge, subject to a maximum of Rs.10,000/-  is payable to them as compensation by the Air India.  In the instant case, Ext. A2 series show that  the base fare in respect of   the ticket of the complainant is Rs.3,391/-  and with respect to others the base fare is Rs.4,624/-. No data is made available with regard to airline fuel charge. That being the position,  the complainant and other passengers who accompanied him are entitled to get 200% of the basic fare.  The complainant is entitled to get compensation of Rs.6,782/- and the co-passengers Rs.9,248/- each, total being Rs.71,518/-. Points found accordingly.

17. Point No. 4 : In light of the findings on the above points, the complaint is disposed of as follows:

(a)    CC.39/2017 is allowed in part.

(b)    The 1st opposite party is directed to pay a sum of Rs.71,518/-  (Rupees Seventy one thousand five hundred and eighteen only)  as compensation to the complainant.

         (c)     The payment  shall be made with within 30 days

                 from  the date of receipt of copy of this order.

         ( d )    No order as to costs.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her and corrected by me and pronounced in the open commission on this the  12^th  day of October   2021.

Date of Filing: 02/02/2017.

                Sd/-                                          Sd/-

        PRESIDENT                                     MEMBER

                                        APPENDIX

Exhibits for the Complainants :

Ext. A1 – Copy of the Civil Aviation Requirements Section 3 –

Air transport Series ‘M’ Part IVissued by Director

General of Civil Aviation,

Ext. A2 – Copy of the e-ticket copies.

Ext.A3 -Copy of the boarding pass copies

Witnesses for the Complainants

    PW1 –  Marapottta Aboobacker - Complainant  

Witnesses for the Opposite Parties

    RW1 –  Nil

                                           Sd/-                   Sd/-                         

                                    PRESIDENT        MEMBER  

                                                          Forwarded/By Order