Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/19/205

Vanita Arora - Complainant(s)

Versus

AIR India - Opp.Party(s)

S.K.Uppal ADv.

12 Apr 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUDHIANA.

                                                Complaint No: 205 dated 02.05.2019.                                                        Date of decision: 12.04.2022.

                                                         

1. Vanita Arora aged 65 years wife of Ashok Kumar Arora,
2. Ashok Kumar Arora aged 73 years son of Sh. Kasturi Lal, both resident of H. No.1345, Phase-II, Dugri, Ludhiana.                                                                                                                           ..…Complainants

                                                Versus

AIR INDIA, Safdarjung Airport, Sri Aurobindo Marg, New Delhi-110003 through its CMD.

                                                                                       …..Opposite party 

Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

QUORUM:

SH. K.K. KAREER, PRESIDENT

SH. JASWINDER SINGH, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainants            :         Sh. S.K. Uppal, Advocate.

For OP                           :         Sh. Baljit Sharma, Advocate.

 

ORDER

PER K.K. KAREER, PRESIDENT

1.                The allegations in the complaint are that the complainants purchased two air tickets for new Jersey (USA) from New Delhi from AirNet Travels Cargo Pvt. Ltd., Feroze Gandhi Market, Ludhiana. The complainants paid fare and further paid Rs.2547/- as premium for pre-reserved seat No.18-A and 18-B. The complainants were issued boarding pass of economy class. The flight was scheduled to leave for New Jersey (EWR USA)  on 25.12.2018 at 07.15 AM. The return tickets were reserved from New Jersey (EWR USA0 on 15.01.2019 vide flight No.AI 144. The complainants were having pre-reserved seat No.18-A and 18-B in the said flight as well. The wheelchair was to be provided at the time of boarding and landing but as promised, the same wee not supplied to the complainants who are senior citizen and are leading retired life. The complainants do not maintain good health that is why they got reserved special seats i.e. 18-A and 18-B.

2.                It is further alleged in the complaint that during their return flight from EWR (USA) to New Delhi via Mumbai, all of a sudden the seats were changed to seat No.51-H and 51-J. These seats were at the back of the plane. The complainants objected saying that they have paid extra premium for reserving seats No.18-A and 18-B but to no avail. Due to changing of seat, the complainants suffered mental pain and agony. They had to travel for more than two hours on seat No.51-H and 51-J which were inconvenient and uncomfortable. Emails were sent to OP on 16.01.2019, 06.02.2019 and 20.02.2019 but the same were not responded to by the OP. A legal notice dated 19.03.2019 served through Sh. S.K. Uppal, Advocate also failed to evoke a positive response from the OP. in the end, it has been requested that a compensation of Rs.60,000/- be paid to the complainants along with interest @18% per annum and litigation expenses of Rs.22,000/-.

3.                The complaint has been resisted by the OP. In the written statement filed on behalf of the OP, it has been, inter alia, pleaded that the complainants have not come to the court with clean hands as they have suppressed the material facts. According to the OP, the complainants booked flight No.AI-191 dated 25.12.2018 from New Delhi to Newark. The scheduled time for departure from New Delhi was 21 hours and arrival at Newark was 0715 hours on 26.12.2018. The return flight from Newark to New Delhi by AI-144 was to leave Newark on 15.01.2019 at 1315 hours and arrived at 1910 hours. The cost of each tickets was Rs.63,211/- each. According to the OP, due to system error, seat No.18-A pre-assigned to the complainants got released of its own on 15.01.2019 four hours before the departure of the flight and thereby making the seat available to some other passenger. The complainants reported for check in Newark at 1134  by the time seat 18-A was already taken. However, this information was conveyed to the complainants by the check in staff at Newark and the complainants were well aware that the seat No.18-B remained un-allotted. While checking in, the complainants were allotted seat No.18A and 18B up to Mumbai where longest part of journey completed.  However, from Mumbai to Delhi seat No.51-J was allotted to complainant No.2 stating that they would have to be seated separately but the complainants requested to be seated together. Hence complainant No.1 voluntarily changed seat from 18-B to 51-H. Otherwise, the seats could not have been given somewhere near to the 18^th row in the front had the complainants check in early. There were total 303 seats in economy class out of 296 passengers had checked in and there were hardly any seats left in the front row where the complainants could be seated together. Despite all these, the OP agreed to refund charged collected from the complainants in the whole segment amounting to Rs.1081/- and Rs.216/- overlooking the fact that they were accommodated on their preferred seat from Newark to Mumbai. Thus, there has been no deficiency of service on the part of the OP. The other averments made in the complaint have been denied as wrong and in the end, a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.

4.                In evidence, the complainant No.1 submitted her affidavit as Annexure- CA along with documents Annexure-A to Annexure-I and closed the evidence.

5.                On the other hand, the counsel for the OP tendered affidavit Ex. RA of Sh. Aurindam Chattopadhyay, Airport Manager of OP along with document Ex. R1 and closed the evidence.

6.                We have heard the counsel for the parties and gone through the record carefully.

7.                It is the admitted case of the OP in the written statement that during their return flight from Newark to New Delhi via Mumbai on 15.01.2019, though the complainants were allotted reserved seat No,18-A and 18-B which were in front row from Newark to Mumbai, but from Mumbai to New Delhi, they could not be allotted the same seats i.e. seat No.18A and 18B for which they had paid a sum of Rs.1050/- and Rs.1081/- extra. It is further admitted case of the OP that due to some systematic error one of the reserved seats was allotted to somebody else. Therefore, the seat of the complainants had to be changed. It is further not disputed that since the complainants were made to travel on a different seat i.e. seat No.51-H and 51-J, which were not in front row where the boot space is extra and comfortable for which the complainant had paid extra money also, even though, the same were in the economy class itself. In the given circumstances, it is definitely amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the OP as the complainants were put to inconvenience due to some error in the system of allotment of seats. In the given circumstances, in our considered view, it would be just and proper if the OP is made to pay a composite costs and compensation of Rs.7,000/- to the complainants.

8.                As a result of the above discussion, the complaint is partly allowed with an order that the OP shall pay a composite cost and compensation of Rs.7,000/- (Rupees Seven Thousand only) to the complainants within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

 

 

9.                Due to rush of work and spread of COVID-19, the case could not be decided within statutory period.

 

                             (Jaswinder Singh)                            (K.K. Kareer)

                    Member                                           President

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:12.04.2022.

Gobind Ram.

Vanita Arora and another Vs Air India                                     CC/19/205

Present:       Sh. S.K. Uppal, Advocate for complainants.

                   Sh. Baljit Sharma, Advocate for OP.

 

                   Arguments heard. Vide separate detailed order of today, the complaint is partly allowed with an order that the OP shall pay a composite cost and compensation of Rs.7,000/- (Rupees Seven Thousand only) to the complainants within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

  

                             (Jaswinder Singh)                            (K.K. Kareer)

                    Member                                           President

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:12.04.2022.

Gobind Ram.