Delhi

New Delhi

CC/356/2015

ASHOK BAJAJ - Complainant(s)

Versus

CMD AIR INDIA - Opp.Party(s)

07 Apr 2017

ORDER

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-VI (DISTT. NEW DELHI), ‘M’ BLOCK, 1^STFLOOR,

VIKAS BHAWAN, I.P.ESTATE,

NEW DELHI-110002.

 

Case No. 356/2015                                                               Dated

IN THE  MATTER OF :-

 

1.      Sh. Ashok Bajaj

      B-71,Vinoba Kunj,

      Sector-9,Rohini,

      New Delhi-110085.

 

2.      Bimla Rani

      B-71,Vinoba Kunj,

      Sector-9,Rohini,

      New Delhi-110085.

 

 

……COMPLAINANT

Versus           

 

M/S. CMD Air India

113, Gurudwara Rakabganj Road

Patel Chowk, New Delhi-110001.

……OPPOSITE PARTY

 

 

 

ORDER.

 

 

PRESIDENT:- S K SARVARIA

 

The present complaint is filed by jointly by the couple complainants again OP airline through its CMD. The complainants purchased  air ticket   of Air India to  travel form IGI Airport, New Delhi to Heathrow Airport, London (Flight No. NACIL Air India AI-111 3/7/2010), and return ticket to return to IGI airport, New Delhi, ( Flight No.NACIL Air India AI-112 on 18/12/2010 ). There was heavy snowfall on the night of 17/12/2010 in London, which continued even in the next day, i.e., 18/12/2000 . The complainants were to catch the flight No. A I-112 from Heathrow Airport, London, which was miles away from their  place of residence in London. On reaching the airport they came to know that there was no flight due to bad weather and the same flight will now be operating on 19/12/2010 at approximately 12.00 Hrs.. On 19/12/2010 on calling Air India authority at Heathrow airport to confirm the departure of flight, they were conveyed that there would be no flight on that day, i.e., 19/12/2010. The grievance of the complainants is that they waited in a hue on the snow-covered footpath for hiring a taxi, which would take them to hotel for the boarding and lodging , continuously for more than three hours. They stayed in the hotel for the night of 18 December 2010 and were compelled to retreat to home by taxi on 19/12/2010 to catch the flight No. A I-116, which departed from Heathrow on 21/12/2010 at 21.30 and the visa was expiring on 23/12/2010. According to complainants the rectification was sought from their side, but there were inconsistent replies from the side of OP airline. The complainant's have claimed the relief of maintenance charges as follows:

 

A .Maintenance Charges

Particulars	Pond	Rupees
Taxi fare from Have to Heathrow	250.00	20000.00
Coolie charges for carrying luggage from taxi stand to inside Airport	9.00	720.00
Taxi fare from Heathrow Airport to Hotel	41.80	3344.00
Hotel Stay charges	60.00	4800.00
Call charges at London	50.00	4000.00
Dinner charges at Hotel	29.55	2364.00
Taxi fare from Heathrow to hove on 19/12/2010	200.00	16000.00
Incidental expenses (travel postage, typing etc.) while in India	-	4500.00
Total	640.35	55728.00

 

 

For mental agony caused to both the complainant the complainants have claimed Rs. 50,000/– and interest on delayed payment at the rate of 12% per annum amounting to Rs. 25,375/–

. In all the complainants have prayed for direction to the OP to make the payment of Rs. 131,103/- keeping with the hard ship and mental agony faced by them.

 

The OP was put to the notice who contested the complaint. The complaint was disposed of by this District Forum by order pronounced on 20/5/2013 directing the OP airlines to pay the incidental expenses of Rs. 55,000/- and compensation in the sum of Rs. 25,000/-. The OP challenged the said order in appeal before Honb’le State Commission who by its order in appeal, dated 5/5/2015 in First Appeal No. 708/2013 set aside the order dated 20/5/2013 passed by this District Forum and remanded the matter back to this District Forum with the direction to endeavour to dispose of the complaint within six months. The cost of Rs. 15,000/- was also imposed and OP airline was also allowed to file written statement. Thereafter, reply  was filed by the OP by stating in short that there was heavy snowfall at Heathrow, London on 18/12/2010 and by mid-morning the flights into Heathrow were diverted to other stations in Europe as Heathrow airport was closed due to heavy snow. Heathrow airport stayed closed till 21/12/2010. The extra ordinary circumstances of heavy snowfall due to which flights were cancelled were unforeseen and beyond the control of the OP airlines. The booked flight AI-112 of 18/12/2010, was cancelled as the incoming aircraft was diverted to other place and its subsequent cancellation was brought about by the impact of a traffic management decisions at Heathrow Airport, which were based on metrological changes incompatible with the safe operation of the operating carrier and the OP airlines had no role in the same.

 

The OP has taken the plea that as per the Passenger Handling Manual of the OP, in the event of flight been indefinitely delayed or cancelled, the OP airlines  liability is limited to ensuring that the passengers and their baggage reach the destination by the quickest means possible and without any additional charges. Alternate transportation is to be considered in the following sequence:

 

Other Air India flights, code sharer partners flights, Services, of other Carriers. In such circumstances, OP is not liable to provide the passengers with hotel accommodation or refreshment. In light of above the complainants were put on the only flight, which was allowed to operate out of Heathrow Airport, i.e.,AI-116 on 21/12/2010. The OP has also taken the plea that the travel agent is also a necessary party to the present complaint and it was the responsibility of the travel agent to inform the complainant of the change in schedule of the flights, which was duly communicated to them by the OP airline. It is also pointed out by the OP that if no local contacts are mentioned in the complainants reservation record, then the OP airline provides the information of changes, rescheduling or cancellation to travel agents. In the present case, no local contact was mentioned in the complainants reservation record so the OP was unable to inform the complainant directly of the change in flight schedule. OP has relied upon causes 1.5 Civil Aviation Requirements Section 3 Air Transport  dated 6/8/2010 issued by the Office of the Directorate General of Civil Aviation and 8.2 (e) of Passenger Handling Manual. OP has also relied on Article 10 of International Air Transport Association General Conditions of Carriage (Passenger and Baggage) (in short, I ATA) and Article 17 (9) of the Terms and Conditions of Online Booking (Air India). The OP has denied other facts stated in the complaint and has prayed for its dismissal.

 

In the rejoinder/reply of complainants to the reply of OP the complainant's have denied the averments made therein and have reaffirmed the facts stated in the complaint. The complainants have filed affidavit along with the said reply to reply of the OP/rejoinder. In support of its case, the OP airlines has filed affidavit in evidence of Ms. Sangeeta Bawa working as Manager (Commercial) with the OP airlines.. Both parties have filed written arguments.

 

We have heard the complainants in person, learned counsel for OP and have gone through the written arguments filed on behalf of parties, record of the case and relevant provisions of law.

It is not disputed that the complainants booked the flight in question operated by OP airline from Indira Gandhi Airport , New Delhi to Heathrow, London (Flight No. NACIL Air India AI-111 3/7/2010 ), and back to IGI airport, New Delhi, ( Flight No.NACIL Air India AI-112 on 18/12/2010 ). It is also not disputed that the complainants arrived from IGI report, New Delhi to Heathrow, London. The grievance of the complainants is of the return flight from Heathrow, London to IGI Airport, New Delhi. Undisputedly, the complainants were to return to New Delhi by Flight No.NACIL Air India AI-112 scheduled fir on 18/12/2010, which was to take off from Heathrow, London. It is also not disputed that the said flight did not take off on account of bad weather, i.e. heavy snowfall in London. The complainants had to manage in an  accommodation in the hotel  and also went to Hove in their accommodation  and they returned to New Delhi from Heathrow, London by flight No.AI-116, which departed from Heathrow airport on 21/12/2010.

 

In the backdrop of the above factual position the complainant's have raised the grievance  that on 18/12/2010 they gave a number of phone calls from their telephone number to Air India Authority at Heathrow Airport at their telephone numbers to confirm the scheduled flight due to heavy snowfall on the night of 17/12/2010 in London as they found it necessary so that they could start their journey by taxi from Hove to Heathrow. Each time the reply was that departure was as per schedule. The son of the complainants also made several calls to, India Airport Authority and was given the same reply. No report of cancellation of flight was given to BBC TV or to the complainant's by the OP. As such complainants had no option but to depart from Hove to Heathrow by hiring a taxi. On reaching Airport after enquiry from enquiry counter of the OP, they were informed that there shall be no flight on 18/12/2010 due to bad weather and  the said flight will be operating on 19/12/2010 at approximately 12 hours. On the morning of 19/12/2010 the complainants again called on Air India Authority at Heathrow Airport and was informed that there would be no flight on 19/12/2010. The complainants have alleged that they waited in a Que on the snow-covered footpath for hiring a taxi which would take them to the hotel for the boarding and lodging, continuously for more than three hours. They stayed in the hotel for night of 18/12/2010 and were compelled to retreat to home by taxi  on 19/12/2010 to hove and in 21-12-2010 by taxi  from thcatch the flight No.AI-116, which departed from Heathrow from 21/12/2010 at 21.30.

                                   The OP has denied the liability in this case. According to OP, Complaints have claimed charges towards call charges to London, taxi fare from Heathrow to go on 19/12/2010 and incidental expenses of travel postage, typing etc while in India. The objection to these claims of the complainant raised by OP airlines is that the complainant's have not produced all the documents in support of these claims. The defence of the OP  is that due to heavy snow fall the flight could not take place. As regards inconvenience suffered by the complainants, the case of OP airline is that it was not liable to provide passengers with the hotel accommodation or taxi fair or refreshment . The complainants were put on the only  first flight that was allowed to break out of Heathrow airport, i.e. on 21/12/2010 when the airport was reopened  and flights were allowed to resume their operation. No additional charge was levied on the complainant for the subsequent flight. On the question of non-intimation to them in time about cancellation of flight in question on 18/12/2010, the contention of the OP  is that the travel agent  through whom the tickets were bought by the complainant's was duly informed of change in the schedule of flight, through the OP airlines Reservation System. According to OP, the complainant's have booked tickets from Check My Trip.Com. And not from yatra.com, as alleged by them. According to OP travel agent is a necessary party to the present complaint and the complaint is bad for non-joining of the travel agent. It is stressed on behalf of the OP that since the complainant did not provide their contact number or local contact in PNR (Passenger Name and Record) to enable the OP airline to advise the complainants of delays, cancellations, et cetera through phone or email directly, therefore, the travel agent was  duly informed by the OP and if travel agent has not communicated the cancellation of flight to the complainants it is  the travel agent and not the OP airline who is liable. On behalf of the OP, the reliance is placed upon Inter Global Aviation Limited Versus N. Sachidanand JT 2011. (8) SC106 and Ravneet Singh Bagga versus M/S KLM Royal Dutch Airlines and Another JT 1999 (11) SC 640.

 

There can be no dispute that if the flight is cancelled due to heavy snowfall in Heathrow Airport in London, no fault can be attributed to the OP airline on this count. Therefore, there is no need to go into the detail of  Rules and Regulations relied upon by the OP airline in the reply to the complaint in this regard. The controversy narrows down to the question whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of OP airline for non-intimation to the complainant about cancellation of the flight on 18/12/2010  which led complainants incur expenses of  taxi, collie food, Hotel stay etc.

. It is to be pointed out that as per Civil Aviation Requirements Series 'M' Part IV Issued by Officers of Directorate General of Civil Aviation, Government of India, effective from 15/8/2010  so far is relevant airlines should endeavour to invariably inform the passengers of cancellation of their flights as far in advance as possible of the scheduled time of departure, provided at  the time of effecting his/her Reservation, the passenger has given the relevant contact information, e.g telephone number (landline or mobile), and/or fax number and/or email ID or in any alternate reasonable form requested for by the airline. Here, we do not agree with the OP that since local address was not provided by the complainants, they could not be communicated directly by the OP airline about cancellation of flight and they have instead communicated to the travel agent from whom the complainants have bought the tickets. Our disagreement rests on  two counts. One, the travel agent, who facilitated the air tickets in question to the complainants pertaining to the OP airlines shall be deemed to be in the position of the agent of the OP airline and authorized by OP airline to sell the air tickets. Therefore, if the travel agent is not made a party, the complaint of the complainants cannot be thrown out on the plea of non-joinder of essential parties, since the principal/master/OP airline is made the party in this complaint by the complainants. Further, if the travel agent has not intimated to the complainant's about cancellation of flight on 18/12/2010. despite OP airline intimating the same to the travel agent then due to fauet  of the travel agent OP airline being master/principal cannot escape liability for negligence in duty of its agent/travel agent.Two, the case of the complainants is that they have repeatedly made telephone calls to the  Air India Authority at Heathrow airport and were intimated that the flight was at schedule. Similar calls made by son of the complainants received the same message from Air India Authority at Heathrow Airport . Why, the wrong message was conveyed to the complainants and the son of complainants? There certainly is deficiency in services on the part of the OP airline, which led to the complainant dos pending on coolly charges, hotels.  call charges  taxi charges , dinner charges at hotel as detailed in paragraph nine of the complaint and amounting to total as Rs. 55,728/–. The fact that copies of  all documents are receipts  could not be produced by the complainants does not make their claim false on this count as these claims apparently, look genuine  and correct in the given facts and circumstances of the case.

 

In Inter Globe Aviation Limited's case (supra). the Hon’ble  Supreme Court was dealing with the case of a low-cost carrier as against the present case where Air India  indisputably is a full-service carrier. In the said judgement the honourable Supreme Court has highlighted the point that the services provided to  by low-cost carrier to  the passengers who prefer to travel on budget fares , knowing fully well that they cannot  be expected to be at per with  the services associates with full-service carriers. Therefore, in our view,Inter Globe Aviation Limited's case (supra) does not help the OP airline. In Ravneet Singh Bagga's case (supra) the Hon’ble Supreme Court was dealing with the question of delay  on account of verification of visa papers, and whether it  amounts to deficiency in service on the part of airline and it was held that the bonafide steps  taken by staff of the airline cannot be held to be deficiency in service. However, in the present case, there is no question of delay in flight on account of verification of document by officials of OP like in Ravneet Singh Bagga's case (supra). Therefore, this case also does not help the OP airline.

 

                It is a case of deficiency in service on account of non-intimation about cancellation of flight to the complainants by OP airline or the travel agent who sold the air tickets to the complainants and was intimated by the OP airline about cancellation of flight. The deficiency in service is also established by the fact that the complainants, telephonically asked the Air India Authority at Her throw Airport  and were intimated that the scheduled flight will take place same was the reply given to the son of the complainant's. This deficiency in service on the part of OP Airline led the complainant's to hire, the taxi to come from hove to the Heathrow airport only to know that the scheduled flight had been cancelled. on 18/12/2010. due to heavy snowfall. This led the complainants  hire , taxi again to go to the hotel and stay there for a night  and then again go to the hove at home in London  then from Hove to the Heathrow Airport on 21 December 2010. The travel postage charges typing taxi charges and telephone charges as claimed in the complaint looks genuine and in our view, the OP should pay these charges amount to the complainants. Further, the total compensation for the two senior citizens/complainants of  Rs. 50,000 ( 25,000 each of complainants) on account of mental agony and harassment suffered by them in the process is also not excessive. The interest on delayed payment at the rate of 12% per annum amounting to Rs. 25,375 also looks  not unreasonable.

 

In view of the above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct the OP airline to make the payment in the sum of Rs 131, 103/– with cost of litigation in the sum of Rs 10,000/–. In case the said amount is not paid by the OP airline within a period of one month from date of receipt of this order, then the same shall be recoverable from the OP airline along with simple interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of this order till the recovery of the said amount. This final order be sent to the server www. Confonet.nic. in.  A copy of this order each be sent to both parties by post free of cost. The file be consigned to the record room.

 

Announced in open Forum on 07-04-2017

 

 

 

                                                                                      (S K SARVARIA)

                                                                                         PRESIDENT

 

 

                                                                (H M VYAS)                            (NIPUR CHANDANA)

                                                                    MEMBER                                     MEMBER