Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/935/2019

Ashok Kumar Nanda - Complainant(s)

Versus

Air India - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

10 Feb 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-II,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

Consumer Complaint  No	:	935 of 2019
Date  of  Institution	:	13.09.2019
Date   of   Decision	:	10.02.2022

 

 

 

 

 

Ashok Kumar Nanda, aged 66 years son of Late Sh.Prem Chand Nanda, R/o House No.1398,   Sector 40-B, Chandigarh.

             …..Complainant

 

Versus

 

AIR India through the General Manager, Air India Chandigarh SCO 162-174, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh.

 

    ….. Opposite Party

 

 

BEFORE:  SH.RAJAN DEWAN            PRESIDENT

SMT.PRITI MALHOTRA        MEMBER 

                    SH.B.M.SHARMA                 MEMBER

                               

Argued by  : Complainant in person.

   None for Opposite Party.

 

PER PRITI MALHOTRA, MEMBER

         Concisely put, the complainant, a senior citizen and retired Professor, along with his wife, took Air India Flight No.AI 111 on 17.6.2019 for London to attend a wedding at London, UK and returned back on 25.6.2019 through Air India Flight No.AI 162 (Ann.C-2 to C-5).  It is stated that the OP Airlines failed to provide any attendant at the Airport to help the complainant to place their 23 Kg bags on conveyor belt.  It is also stated that due to lifting of heavy luggage, the complainant developed spasam in his back and his spine also got affected for which the complainant compelled to take treatment from orthopedic doctor in London and is still under treatment (Ann.C-6). It is also stated that inside plane, the complainant and his wife get preferred seat with leg space by paying extra amount to the Op as the flight was for 11-12 hours and the only source to pass time was entertainment through TV which was not in working conditions throughout both the journeys. The complainant reported the matter to OP, but nothing was done.  It is submitted that Air Hostess both male & female of the OPs were available on schedule times of their serving only otherwise they used to sit and chat in their cabins and don’t respond to even on calling through bell by the customers and complainant have to go to the Kitchen cabin for every need. The complainant brought this matter too to the notice of OP, but to no avail. Hence, this complaint.

2]       The OP has filed reply and while admitting the travel of the complainant in their flight, stated that the complainant has failed to make out any case of alleged deficiency in service against the OP.  It is submitted that the flight attendant duly remained present at the Airport and always ready to help passengers.  It is also submitted that the complainant choose to took care of his luggage himself at best interest known to him and there is no evidence on record which supports the allegations made by the complainant that the injury was caused to him at Airport and any medical certificate from London where he stayed for more than a week and that the medical presented on record by complainant is of 2 months after the flight and that too from Chandigarh.  It is pleaded that LED Screens or TV Panels were much functional except at the time of Take Off and Landing which is as per procedure that all phones and electronic units are advised to be put on ‘airplane mode’ so that there is no disturbance in signals from Air Traffic Control Tower.  It is also pleaded that the complainant was duly responded within time frame work by the official of OP. Pleading no deficiency in service and denying rest of the allegations, the OP has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3]       Replication has also been filed by the complainant controverting the assertions made by OP.

4]       Parties led evidence in support of his contentions.

 

5]       We have heard the complainant in person and have perused the entire record.  

 

6]       The complainant failed to bring on record any concrete documentary evidence to prove that he suffered injury at the Airport and too due to any willful or intentional act & conduct on the part of OP. There is also no cogent evidence to prove other allegations of complainant against the OP to establish the alleged deficiency in service.  Thus no case of any deficiency in service is made out against the OP.  Therefore, the present complaint being devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.  

         The certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of charge, after which the file be consigned.   

Announced

10^th February, 2022                                                                         

Sd/-

(RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

 (PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER

 

Sd/-

(B.M.SHARMA)

MEMBER