Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/30/2015

Raghav Nath - Complainant(s)

Versus

Air India - Opp.Party(s)

Suvineet Sharma, Gourav Goel, Tarurag Gaur

28 Aug 2015

ORDER

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

======

Consumer Complaint  No	:	30 of 2015
Date  of  Institution	:	21.01.2015
Date   of   Decision	:	28.08.2015

 

 

 

 

 

Raghav Nath aged about 20 year’s s/o Sh.Puneet Nath c/o Imperial Flour Mills, Seth Brothers, Circular Road, Ambala City 134003, District Ambala, Haryana.

 

             …..Complainant

Versus

 

1]  Air India, through its Managing Director, Registered Office: Air India Limited, Airlines House, 113, Gurudwara Rakabganj Road, New Delhi 110001

 

2]  Amba Airlinks Pvt. Ltd., (Formerly known as Amrit Airlinks Pvt. Ltd.),Office No.304, 3^rd Floor, SCO No.60-62, Sector 17, Chandigarh 160017, through its Managing Director.

 

….. Opposite Parties

 

BEFORE:  SH.RAJAN DEWAN                 PRESIDENT

         SH.JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU       MEMBER

         MRS.PRITI MALHOTRA             MEMBER

 

 

For complainant(s)      :     Sh.Gaurav Goel, Counsel for the                       complainant.

 

For Opposite Party(s)   :     Sh.S.R.Chaudhuri, Counsel for the OP-1

                              Sh.Rajwant Singh Yadav, Authorized gent for OP-2.

 

 

PER PRITI MALHOTRA, MEMBER

 

 

          As per the case, the complainant, a student studying abroad (USA), had purchased a fully paid return ticket (New Delhi – Chicago/Chicago-New Delhi) from the OP No.2 for an Air India flight for an amount of Rs.80,800/-, which was issued on 19.3.2014 and it was confirmed (Ann.C-3).  The said ticket shows the departure from India to Chicago on 23.8.2014 and return to India on 20^th Dec., 2014.  It is averred that the complainant on 22.8.2014, reached IGI Airprt, Delhi 4 hours prior i.e. at about 10 PM as the schedule departure time for Flight AI 127 was 2 a.m., but the OP No.1 cancelled the confirmed reservation and ticket of the complainant due to alleged overbooking of the flight (Ann.C-4).  The Air India refused to issue a boarding pass to the complainant for the scheduled flight despite the complainant holding valid confirmed ticket.  It is averred that the complainant was shocked with such a behaviour and unceremonious cancellation of ticket by OP No.1.  It is also averred that the complainant impressed upon the Opposite Party No.1 the fact that his further scheduled travel plans included confirmed non-refundable ticket on an onward flight to Indianapolis and then shuttle to Bloomington would be jeopardized.  As such, Opposite Party No.1 issued a boarding pass for the next day’s flight i.e. departure on 24.8.2014 at 2.00 AM (Ann.C-5). However, the complainant, in the absence of any arrangements for an overnight stay in Delhi, was constrained to go back to his residence at Ambala by hiring taxi costing him an amount of Rs.3000/- (Ann.C-6).  It is pleaded that due to cancellation of reservation for 23.8.2014, the complainant missed his connecting flight at USA from Chicago to Indianapolis and suffered financial loss i.e. cost of non-refundable ticket costing Rs.14032/- (Ann.C-7 & C-8).  It is also pleaded that by overbooking the flights by the Opposite Parties, the confirmed reservation of the complainant was cancelled and he was off-loaded and asked to take a flight departing two days later. It is further averred that due to the above deficient act of the OPs, the complainant suffered an immense mental agony and harassment as well as irreparable loss. Hence, this complaint has been filed. 

     

2]       The Opposite Party No.1 has filed reply and admitted that the Flight AI 127 was scheduled to depart at 0200 hrs from IGI Airport, ND, on 23.8.2014 for Chicago and that the said flight was overbooked, which is permissible under Civil Aviation Requirements (CAR) (Ann.R-1).  However, in view of the urgency explained by the complainant, he was issued a Boarding Pass for next day’s flight i.e. 24^th August, scheduled at 0200 hrs (Ann.C-5).  It is submitted that this was a clear case of ‘Denied Boarding’.  It is pleaded that though the complainant had a confirmed booking, but due to overbooking he was not allowed to travel on that flight (Ann.R1/A) and having no arrangements for the night stay at ND, he had to make to-and-fro journey to Ambala costing him Rs.3000/- by taxi.  Such a contingency is provided for under the Civil Aviation Requirements (CAR), dated August, 2010, issued by Director General of Civil Aviation, GOI.  It is also pleaded that the amount spent by the complainant is thus reimbursable in terms of Para No.3.5 of Civil Aviation Requirements (Ann.R2/B), in this case Rs.4000/-.  It is further pleaded that complainant’s travel by AI flight was only upto Chicago and he had booking from Chicago onward by other airlines.  Rest of the allegations have been denied with a prayer to dismiss the complaint.

         The Opposite Party No.2 also filed reply and admitted the issuance of said air tickets on Air India Flight, to the complainant, for Delhi –Chicago – Chicago – Delhi.  It is stated that no advance message for schedule change/overbooking/ cancellation for the Flight No.AI-127 dated 23.8.2014 was received.  It is also stated that the overbooking of any flight is done by the airlines and boarding cards issued to the confirmed passenger’s on check in counter by the airlines as per their laid down procedure and the answering Opposite Party, as an agent are unable to render any service to the passenger at that juncture and only the airlines can accommodate the passenger with their consent on next available flights. 

 

3]       Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

 

4]       We have heard the ld.Counsel for the parties and have also perused the record as well as written arguments, so filed.

 

5]       The ld.Counsel for the Opposite Party No.1 admitted the booking of return ticket of complainant for New Delhi – Chicago/Chicago-New Delhi to be departed from India to Chicago on 23.8.2014 and return to India on 20^th Dec., 2014.  Further, admitted that the Flight AI 127 was scheduled to depart at 0200 hrs from IGI Airport, ND, on 23.8.2014 for Chicago and that the said flight was overbooked which is permissible under Civil Aviation Requirements (CAR) (Ann.R-1). The ld.Counsel for the Opposite Party No.1 also submitted that the complainant was issued a Boarding Pass for next day’s flight i.e. 24^th August, scheduled at 0200 hrs (Ann.C-5).  He further submitted that the case of the complainant was a clear case of ‘Denied Boarding’ and under Civil Aviation Requirements (CAR), the airlines are permitted to overbook flights to some extent to obviate flights leaving with empty seats and for this reason, in appropriate cases, Denied Boarding’ compensation is allowed for the inconvenience suffered. 

 

6]       Further, it is admitted by the Opposite Party No.1 that the complainant was not allowed to travel on that flight due to over booking and also admitted having no arrangements for night stay at the airport for which the complainant had to make to & fro journey to Ambala costing him Rs.3000/- by taxi.  Claimed further that even such a contingency is provided for under the Civil Aviation Requirements (CAR), dated August, 2010, issued by Director General of Civil Aviation, GOI and mentioned that the amount spent on the same is reimbursable in terms of Para No.3.5 of CAR, dated August, 2010, referred to above. 

 

7]       With above admissions, the ld.Counsel for Opposite Party No.1 also denied any deficiency in service or any liability for the reason that the complainant has missed his onward flight from Chicago to Indianapolis and then shuttle to Bloomington, which had been booked with other airlines. Claimed further that the above bookings have been done by the Opposite Party No.2, which is not an approved agent of Air India, so Opposite Party No.1 is not responsible for the agents. 

 

7]       In view of the above admissions by Opposite Party No.1, it is to be seen that whether Opposite Party No.1 in the given eventuality acted as per CAR (Civil Aviation Requirements), mentioned above, the relevant part of which reads as under:-

 

“3.2 Denied Boarding

 

3.2.1 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 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.

 

3.2.2 If the boarding is denied to passengers against their will, the airline shall as soon as practicable compensate them in accordance with the provisions of Para 3.5 in addition to refund of air ticket.

 

3.2.3 Airlines overbook their scheduled flights to a limited extent in order to reduce the possibility of flights departing with unoccupied or empty seats because of ‘No Shows’ by booked passengers i.e. passengers who do not report for travel despite firm bookings before the time limit stipulated by the airline. Under the provisions of this CAR, airlines shall be liable to pay compensation to passengers who are denied boarding. Hence, in order to minimize ‘No Shows’, the airlines will be allowed to levy appropriate ‘No Show’ penalties in relation to the Fare as defined under rule 135 of the Aircraft Rules 1937. This penalty will be deducted from the Fare paid by the passenger.

Xxxxxx

 

3.5 Compensation

 

3.5.1 The financial compensation indicated below shall be given only if the amount of tickets costs is higher than the compensation amount:

 

a) Rs.2,000/- or the value of the ticket whichever is less for flights having a block time of upto and including one hour

b) Rs.3.000/- or the value of the ticket whichever is less for flights having block time of more than one hour and upto and including two hours.

c) Rs.4,000/- or the value of the ticket whichever is less for flights having a block time of more than two hours.

 

If the cost of the ticket is less than the amount of compensation indicated above, the airline will be liable to compensate an amount equivalent to the ticket cost in addition to refund of air ticket.”

 

8]       In reference to the above, it is right to mention here that the Opposite Party No.1 has failed to provide the due services to the complainant, as was required under above provisions.  There is no record or pleading on file that the Opposite Party No.1 had ever made any offer to the complainant for the compensation as was legally entitled under the above referred CAR, which certainly is an act of deficiency in service/unfair trade practice on the part of Opposite Party No.1. Further, despite admitting their liability, the Opposite Party No.1 failed to prove that any offer was ever made for the refund of the amount spent for to & fro journey of the complainant from Delhi to Ambala on the day when the complainant was denied boarding despite having confirmed ticket. Thus, it is held that the present complaint is a proven case of deficiency in service of Opposite Party No.1 and also an unfair trade practice.   

 

9]       We also put reliance on Chandi Prasad Bhatt Vs. British Airways, Original Petition No.168 of 1996, decided on 28th Nov., 2002 by the Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi. 

 

10]      In view of the above findings, the compliant stands allowed against Opposite Party No.1. The Opposite Party No.1 is directed as under:-

a]  To pay compensation to the complainant for ‘Denied Boarding’, as per Civil Aviation Requirements, referred above;

b]  To pay Rs.3000/- spent by the complainant on to & fro journey from Delhi to Ambala on account of absence of any arrangements for an overnight stay in Delhi;

c]  To pay Rs.20,000/- as compensation for causing mental & physical harassment to the complainant on account of deficiency in service as well unfair trade practice;

d]  To pay litigation cost of Rs.7000/-

 

         This order shall be complied with by the Opposite Party No.1 within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of its copy, failing which it shall be liable to pay interest @18% per annum on awarded amount, as at Sr.No.a), b) & c) above, from the date of filing this complaint till it is paid, apart from paying the litigation expenses of Rs.7000/-. 

         Since, the Opposite Party No.1 is protected under the Civil Aviation Requirements for overbooking, so it cannot be held liable for the consequential loss suffered by the complainant on account of ‘Denied Boarding’.  So no orders in this regard are passed by this Forum. 

 

11]      However, the complaint qua Opposite Party No.2 stands dismissed.

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

Announced

28^th August, 2015                   

                                                                                       Sd/-

 (RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

 

 

Sd/-

(JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU)

MEMBER

 

 

Sd/-

 (PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER

                                                                                                                       

 

 

DISTRICT FORUM – II

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.30 OF 2015

PRESENT:   None   Dated the 28th day of August, 2015

O R D E R                        Vide our detailed order of even date, recorded separately, the complaint has been allowed against Opposite Party No.1 only.                    After compliance, file be consigned to record room.

 

(Priti Malhotra)	(Rajan Dewan)	(Jaswinder Singh Sidhu)
Member	President	Member