1. This Complaint, under Section 21(a)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short “the Act”), has been filed by two Senior Citizens, namely, Captain G.N. Venkat Rajaram and his wife Ms. G. Andal Rajaram. As per the averments in the Complaint, Complainant No.1 is a Captain of Ships, sailing for the last 46 years and is an honest and glorified high-grade licensed mariner, who has travelled around the world. Complainant No.2 is a well-educated person, working tirelessly in various social causes and helping the needy for decades. Complainant No.1 is the President of Lions Club, Chennai. While Opposite Parties No.1 and 2, namely, American Airlines and British Airways, are having their headquarters in United States of America (USA) and England respectively, Opposite Party No.3 is an employee of the American Airlines and Opposite Party No.4 is a travel agent in Chennai. 2. According to the Complainants, in recognition of their exemplary services and contribution to the Society, particularly since they had frequently collaborated with Sankara Nethralaya Hospital, a world renowned eye hospital in Chennai, for Sight First projects, they were invited to a high profile charity event organized by the United Nations Organization (UNO), at its Headquarters, in New York. The event, which would have funded 3500 free cataract surgeries for the rural poor people in India, inter alia, comprised of a concert, to be performed by A.R. Rehman, a world renowned musician. The participation in the event was by way of invitation only. They were eagerly looking forward to attend the said event. Being holders of valid passports and visas to visit USA, they had booked air tickets with American Airlines and British Airways, through Opposite Party No.4, namely, Sathya Travels and Tours. The said journey for the circuit from Chennai to London to New York to Los Angeles to New York to London to Chennai, was to be completed between 3rd and 17th August, 2016. The journey between Los Angeles and New York was to be serviced by American Airlines. As per the itinerary, the Complainants reached John Wayne Angeles Airport and got ready to board the connecting flight, viz. American Airlines Flight No. 1910 on 15.08.2016. As per the boarding passes issued to them, the said flight was to take off from Los Angeles on the said date at 12.55 a.m. and reach New York at 9.55 a.m., via Charlotte, a transit stop. For the said journey, after the requisite security checks etc. they were allowed to proceed to board the flight. While they were waiting at the Los Angeles Airport for boarding their flight, for New York, about 45 minutes prior to the boarding, an announcement was made, informing the passengers that the said flight was overbooked and, hence, passengers carrying more than 3 pieces of hand luggage or any heavy hand baggage should check it in as a flight baggage. On inspection, the Complainants were cleared for boarding as they had only one hand baggage and that too a small handy baggage, as per the international conventions as also rules and requirements of the airline companies, including the American Airlines. The staff of the said airlines made four groups of the passengers and the Complainants were put in the fourth group. By the time the said group was called in for boarding the flight, about 10 – 15 minutes were left for departure. It is alleged that the Complainants were stopped from boarding the flight by an agent of the American Airlines, i.e. Opposite Party No.3, on the ground that there was no space for their hand luggage. However, in their place, two other passengers, who had two large hand baggages, were allowed to board the flight. Eventually, the said flight departed without the Complainants, who were made to wait the entire night at the airport without any moderate/reasonable facilities, being Senior Citizens. The staff of American Airlines not only misbehaved with the Complainants in an unlawful manner but clearly displayed an explicit deficiency of service reeking of racism and arrogance. The Complainants were made to travel to New York by the said Airlines the next date, i.e. 15.08.2016, through Flight No. 1972, completely throwing them off their schedule to participate in the UNO event. Ultimately, the Complainants reached the venue at 6.30 p.m. but missed the inaugural ceremony of the event. 3. In the said background, alleging breach of service, misuse of dominant position in the market and deficiency in service on the part of American Airlines as well as British Airways in subjecting the Complainants to unlawful/unethical acts and putting them in extreme mental agony, as also exhibiting racial discrimination against them, and not ensuring that their customers travel without any sort of hindrance, this Complaint has been preferred by the Complainants. As regards, Opposite Party No.2, namely, British Airways, it is averred in the Complaint that the said Opposite Party, being in collaboration with American Airlines, is equally responsible and jointly liable to pay the compensation. The Complainants have prayed for the following reliefs against the Opposite Parties; 1. Refund of the costs incurred by them for effecting their travel from Los Angeles to New York as their travel did not happen as per their original schedule; 2. Award of a compensation/cost of ₹3,00,00,000/- (Rupees three crores only) by Opposite Party No.1 to the Complainants for committing gross deficiency in service, having committed breach of service conditions and for indulging in unlawful and unethical conduct and condemnable business practices with its customers by misusing their dominant position in their market; 3. Award of a compensation/cost of ₹2,00,00,000/- (Rupees two crores only) by Opposite Party No. 1 to the Complainants for the extraordinary mental agony caused to them in view of the multiple unlawful and unethical acts of the Opposite Parties towards them as illustrated above. 4. Award of a compensation/cost of ₹2,00,00,000/- (Rupees two crores only) by Opposite Party No. 2 to the Complainants for not putting up systems and regulations in place with its partner airlines to ensure seamless travel and to avoid problems arising out of internal policies, etc., as well as for not being transparent in conducting their business and for trying to evade the law.” 4. Thus in addition to refund of the costs incurred by them for travel from Los Angeles to New York, a total compensation amounting to ₹7,00,00,000/- (Rupees seven crores only) has been claimed in the Complaint. 5. On 20.11.2017, when the case was listed for hearing on admission, after addressing the Bench for some time, the Complainants had sought adjournment to file an additional affidavit, explaining as to how this Commission had the Territorial as well as Pecuniary Jurisdiction to entertain the Complaint. In furtherance thereof, an affidavit has been filed by Complainant No.1 on behalf of both the Complainants. As regards the territorial jurisdiction, the Complainants state that the tickets for the entire trip were booked with Opposite Party No.4, which is located at Chennai, and Indian offices of Opposite Parties No. 1 and 2 are located in New Delhi. So far as the pecuniary jurisdiction is concerned, the Complainants, inter alia, state that the sufferings and injustice meted out to them deliberately by the representatives of the Opposite Parties cannot be given an exact monetary value; the quantification of the claimed amounts have been done keeping in view the magnitude of the Opposite Parties and reflect only a subtle representation of the losses, pain and anguish suffered by them, in the following manner: “(a) For unlawfully and discriminately prohibiting us from boarding the aircraft at Los Angeles especially without any cause whatsoever – US $ 3,00,000/-. (b) Consequently, for having to wait the entire night in the airport constantly appalled and hurt with agony and anguish thinking about the fact that such racial discrimination has been meted out to us; about the fact that such unfair and cheap types of trade practices take place; about the fact that such huge players such as Opponent Nos. 1 and 2 allow such gross deficiency in their service, knowingly, and do nothing to stop them – making it clear that their concerns like solely with the customers’ money and not in their interests - US $ 2,00,000/-. (c) Thereafter for providing us with flights with absolutely unsuitable timings from Los Angeles to Charlotte and then after a huge transit from Charlotte to New York. These flights ensured that our schedules made after weeks of precise planning for the sake of our convenience were destroyed. In view of these unsuitable and delayed flights, we missed our booking made at the Hotel in New York where we were to stay, rest and get ready for the UNO event. Having missed our Hotel booking, we had to freshen-up, change our dresses and get ready at the New York airport toilet. Our pain and anguish in this regard - US $ 2,00,000/-. (d) It was made clear to us in the invitation that the United Nations Organization event would maintain strict timings. Entry timings would be followed the same way as a passenger would have to check-in for their respective flight in airports. However, because of the actions of the Opposite Parties 1 and 2, we got late, had to directly go from the airport to the UNO headquarters because we were late, by the time we arrived we had missed the entire inaugural ceremony, a major purpose destroyed. On that count - US $ 2,00,000/-. (e) In view of the delay, we missed out on the ‘get-together’ prior to the commencement of the event at the UNO headquarters; crucial opportunities to personally meet and/or get introduced with philanthropist and donors, who had come from all over the world, who could have financed medicine for ‘Juvenile Diabetes’ and ‘Juvenile Eye Care’ in Chennai was lost. (f) Owing to our delay, we had to beg and plead to even enter inside the premises. It was difficult and took enormous effort to convince them to allow us to enter. Thereafter, we missed our premium seats inside the auditorium where, if we would have arrived as per our schedule, we would have had the opportunity to be amongst such philanthropists, donors and other luminaries. Instead, we were made to sit far away thus losing all our hope, opportunity and happiness. The entire purpose of our participation in the event was lost and the remaining moments of the event were watched by us with enormous pain, anger and sadness. For lost opportunities which could have been used for serving the society and our personal happiness of having well-participated in an historic event which was lost - US $ 2,00,000/- [(e) and (f) together]. (g) The constant memory till date of the humiliation meted out to us by preventing us from boarding the aircraft and the arrogance of the representatives of the Opposite Parties 1 and 2 to abuse their customers as per their whims and fancies - US $ 1,00,000/-.” 6. Having heard Learned Counsel for the Complainants, on the question of quantification of the compensation under the afore-stated heads, at some length, we are of the view that the claims made in the Complaint are without any sound basis and have been exaggerated in order to invoke the jurisdiction of this Commission and hence the same cannot be entertained by this Commission. 7. It is true that quantification of computation/damages depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. No hard and fast rule can be laid down for universal application. It is also true that while quantifying compensation, the Consumer Fora has to take into account all relevant factors and assess the compensation on the basis of accepted legal principles on moderation. There is also no quarrel with the proposition that the question whether or not a claim made in a complaint is “realistic”, “exaggerated” or “excessive” is to be determined after the Complainant has been given an opportunity to prove the case he has set up and establish his claim under various heads. Nevertheless, if even taking the case set up in the Complaint and the supporting documents at their face value, the claim made appears to be ex-facie unusually high without any basis, a Consumer Fora would be justified in declining to admit the Complaint and relegating the complainant to an appropriate Forum. We feel that admission of such complaints, ignoring inflated claims, without any foundation may also lead to forum shopping, entailing serious consequences. 8. A similar issue came up for consideration before this Commission in Sujata Nath Vs. Popular Nursing Home & Ors.- CC No. 60 of 2011. Rejecting the contention of the Complainant that the Complainant was free to claim the compensation as per his own assessment, keeping in view the extent of the loss and the injury suffered by him, and that the complaint could not be disposed of at a preliminary stage on the ground that the claim was exaggerated, vide order dated 08.07.2011, the complaint was dismissed with a direction to the complainant to suitably amend her complaint and file the same before an appropriate Consumer Forum. The said order has been affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, vide an order dated 14.10.2011, in Civil Appeal No. 8642 of 2011. A similar view was taken by this Commission in CC No. 9 of 2010, which was dismissed on the ground that the Complainant had unreasonably inflated the claim for exemplary damages for bringing the complaint within the jurisdiction of this Commission. The Civil Appeal preferred by the Complainant against the said order was dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 06.10.2010. 9. In the present case, it is evident from the afore-noted break-up of the compensation claimed, that all the claims made for the alleged unlawful and unethical conduct; misuse of dominant position by the Opposite Parties; extra-ordinary mental agony caused to them in view of malafide, unlawful and un-ethical acts of the Opposite Parties and their not being transparent in conducting business for trying to evade the law, are purely on ad hoc basis. The justification for the said claims, as explained in the additional affidavit is again too vague to advance the case of the Complainants. Although it is pleaded in the Complaint that the said event would have funded 3500 free cataract surgeries for the poor people living in the rural areas but in what manner such significant and substantial donations were lost on account of Complainants’ missing the opening ceremony/concert, is left to one’s imagination. We say no more, lest our further observations may cause prejudice to the case of the Complainants. 10. For the aforegoing reasons, we are of the opinion that, as at present, the Complainants have not been able to satisfy us as to the basis on which a total claim of ₹7,00,00,000/- (Rupees Seven Crore only) has been quantified. We are convinced that the claims have been inflated in order to invoke the jurisdiction of this Commission. 11. Consequently, we decline to admit the Complaint. The complaint is dismissed accordingly, with liberty to the Complainants to suitably amend the complaint and file the same before an Appropriate Consumer Fora. Needless to clarify again that nothing observed hereinabove shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the instant complaint. |
