Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/544/2018

Kanav Chopra - Complainant(s)

Versus

Air India - Opp.Party(s)

Ravi Inder Singh

29 Nov 2019

ORDER

 DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

[1]

                    

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/544/2018
Date of Institution	:	31/10/2018
Date of Decision	:	29/11/2019

 

Kanav Chopra s/o Sh. Rajesh Chopra r/o Lok Sewak Colony, Bassi Road, Sirhand.

… Complainant

V E R S U S

Air India, SCO 162-164, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh, 160022, through its Authorized representative.

… Opposite Party

[2]

                    

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/545/2018
Date of Institution	:	31/10/2018
Date of Decision	:	29/11/2019

 

Aditya Chopra s/o Sh. Sanjeev Chopra r/o Lok Sewak Colony, Bassi Road, Sirhand.

… Complainant

V E R S U S

Air India, SCO 162-164, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh, 160022, through its Authorized representative.

… Opposite Party

CORAM :	SHRI RATTAN SINGH THAKUR	PRESIDENT
	SHRI SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

                                                

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Ravi Inder Singh, Counsel for complainant
	:	Sh. Navpreet Singh, Counsel for OP

Per Rattan Singh Thakur, President

1.     By this order we propose to dispose of the aforementioned consumer complaints in which common questions of law and facts are involved.
2.     The facts, for convenience, have been culled out from Consumer Complaint No.544 of 2018 titled as Kanav Chopra Vs. Air India.
3.      The long and short of the allegations are, complainant was to attend 9^th University Scholars Program at Bangkok from 2.8.2018 to 6.8.2018 and he had booked Air India Flight from Mohali to Delhi for 1.8.2018 scheduled to depart at 7:25 a.m which was to land at Delhi at 8.30 a.m and from Delhi the flight was to depart at 1.50 p.m. and land at Bangkok at 7.35 p.m. on 1.8.2018. On 1.8.2018, the complainant boarded the flight from Mohali to Delhi which had to be grounded after take off due to bird hit.  The snag caused was not corrected. Thereafter the OP had made arrangement for the complainant to board a flight of Jet Airways from Mohali at 11:40 a.m on 1.8.2018 which landed at Delhi airport at about 12:35 p.m. Due to required codal formalities, he missed the connecting flight at 1:50 p.m. for Bangkok.  The OP arranged alternative on the next day i.e. 2.8.2018 and complainant reached Bangkok at 7.30 p.m. on 2.8.2018. As such, the complainant failed to join the conference on 2.8.2018, but, he attended the programme from 3.8.2018 to 6.8.2018. Hence, the present consumer complaint alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs and for directing the OPs to pay Rs.3.00 lakhs for deficiency in service; Rs.3.00 lakhs for mental and physical harassment alongwith interest and Rs.1.00 lakh as litigation fee.
4.     OP contested the consumer complaint and filed its written reply. The case of the OP is, per chance bird had hit the flight, therefore, it had to be grounded for safety of passengers.  Attempts were made to correct the snag, but, when they failed, OP arranged Jet Airways flight on payment to them in the minimum possible time. At Delhi, complainant had to undergo de-boarding security checks and then to board the next flight, but, time was insufficient and by that time flight to Bangkok had already taken off. Therefore, arrangement was made in the flight of next day.  Hence, claimed due to security of passengers, flight had to be grounded at Mohali airport and codal formalities of security checks was to be done by the force deployed at Delhi. Hence, maintained, OP was not at fault and the act was beyond its control.  On these lines, the cause is sought to be defended.
5.     Rejoinder was filed and averments made in the consumer complaint were reiterated.
6.     Parties led evidence by way of affidavits and documents.
7.     We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the case. After perusal of record, our findings are as under:-
8.     Per pleadings of the parties, flight from Mohali had taken off on 1.8.2018 at 7:25 a.m. and bird had hit the engine as a result whereof it had to be grounded keeping in view the security and safety of the passengers otherwise there could have been some untoward incident. The said hitting of the bird was beyond the control of the OP and it had accommodated the complainant in the next flight of Jet Airways on payment and at Delhi due to de-boarding and other formalities of security check etc., connecting flight had taken off at 1:50 p.m. which the complainant missed and he was accommodated next day and reached Bangkok. From these pleadings and evidence by way of affidavits whatever was within the control and power of the OP, it took those steps. It was an act of God that bird had hit the plane and then it had to be grounded at Mohali airport which was not within the control of the OP.  Such act of God is a just legal excuse to ward off liability fastened upon it. Had the flight not been grounded, it would have caused casualties and the life of passengers was at risk. There is no dispute about these facts.
9.     Not only this even Jet Airways flight had reached Delhi at 12.35 p.m. and the formalities were to be done to board the flight of Bangkok, which was missed and next day arrangements were made. This further shows OP had taken all possible actions which were at its command to accommodate the complainant on time, but, due to act of God, he had missed the flight and was away from the programme for one day i.e. 2.8.2018. From these facts and evidence, there is definitely a legal excuse on the part of OP and by any stretch of imagination, it could not be said, there was any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on its part so as to attract the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for the protection of the consumer i.e. the complainant. 
10.     True it is, loss was caused to the complainant, but, in order to avoid such like incident had he flown one day in advance, then such event (missing of the course for one day) ought not to have happened. We are of the firm view it is not a case of deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. 
11.     There is no Air India Office at Mohali and the adjoining area office is situated at Chandigarh. As such, since the branch of OP is situated at Chandigarh, therefore, this Forum has the jurisdiction to try and entertain the present consumer complaint. 
12.     In view of the above discussion, we do not find any merit in both the consumer complaints and the same are hereby dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. 
13.     The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

	Sd/-	Sd/-
29/11/2019	[Suresh Kumar Sardana]	[Rattan Singh Thakur]
hg	Member	President