Haryana

StateCommission

A/75/2017

AIR INDIA LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

DR PRERNA MALIK - Opp.Party(s)

S.R.CHAUDHURI

04 Oct 2017

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

HARYANA PANCHKULA

                  

                                                First appeal No.75 of 2017

Date of the Institution: 23.01.2017

Date of Decision: 04.10.2017

 

Air India (NACIL), through Station Manager, SCO 162-164, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh.

                                                                             .….Appellant

 

Versus

 

1. Dr. Prerna Malik, R/o 99 R Model town, Rohtak, Haryana.
2. Flight Raja Travels (P) Ltd, Magnolia, Block B, Level 4, Manyata Embassy Business Park, Nagwara, Bangalore 560045 through its Proprietor.

                                                                             .….Respondents

 

CORAM:    Mr.R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member

                    Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member

 

Present:-    Mr.S.R.Chaudhary, Advocate for the appellant.

                   Dr. Prerna Malik, Respondent No.1 in person.

                   Mr.Anshul Jindal, Advocate for respondent No.2.

 

O R D E R

R.K.Bishnoi, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

 

          It was alleged by complainant that  she purchased e-tickets of O.P.No.2 to go from Delhi to Cochin on 20.09.2013 and return ticket for 26.09.2013 and paid Rs.34,657/-.  As per schedule she reached boarding pass counter at 04.40 A.M., but, concerned official refused to issue boarding pass on the ground that she  reported late whereas 7/8 persons were ahead of her in the boarding pass lines and by the time she reached/faced concerned official at boarding pass counter three minutes were remaining for closer of the boarding counter window, but, he refused to issue boarding pass and after over-writing time on e-tickets asked her to contact Mr. Vijay. He narrated entire instant to him, but, did not pay any heed. Instead of accepting her request he threatened to throw her  out of airport. Finding no other alternative she purchased new ticket of jet airways to go from Delhi to Cochin against payment of Rs.25,000/-. The tickets were booked from Rohtak and confirmation was also received at that place, so District Forum Rohtak was having jurisdiction to try the complaint.  O.ps. be directed to grant relief as prayed for.

2.      Both the O.Ps. filed separate replies controverting her averments and alleged that District Forum Rohtak was not having territorial jurisdiction to try the complaint. Objections about maintainability, locus standi, etc. were also raised.  It was alleged by O.P.No.1 that it’s role was limited i.e. facilitating in booking of tickets. 

3.      In addition thereto,  O.P.No.2 alleged that complainant did not report at check-in counter within time. She was to come 45 minutes before departure.  Last passenger was allowed to board who reported at 04.52 A.M. Before closer of counter,  announcements were also made so that no passenger was left behind.  Against the capacity of 157 of aircraft only 112 passengers travelled.  As the fault was on the part of complainant, so she was not entitled for any compensation.

4.      After hearing both the parties, the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak (in short “District Forum”) allowed complaint vide impugned order dated 09.09.2016 and directed the O.P. No.2 to refund the amount of Rs.25,000/- alongwith interest @ 09% per annum from the date of booking of air ticket i.e. 20.09.2015 till its actual realization and shall also pay a sum of Rs.5000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant.

5.      Feeling aggrieved therefrom, the O.P.No.2 has preferred this appeal.

6.      Arguments heard. File perused.

7.      Learned counsel for O.P.-appellant vehemently argued that  passenger who had reported upto 04.52 A.M. was allowed to board plane, though closing time was 04.50 A.M.  Complainant reported at 04.55 am and by that time the counter was already closed. Her case was considered as no show. It is no-where proved on the file that she came to counter at 04.40 A.M.  So she is not entitled for any compensation. At the time of arguments he also produced affidavit of Vijay Kumar, referred as above.

8.      This argument is of no avail. Affidavit of Mr. Vijay Kumar cannot be taken into consideration at this stage. O.P.No.2 was having ample opportunity to produce him when the evidence was being led.  As per averments of O.ps. a passenger who reported at 04.52 A.M. was also allowed to board, whereas she reported at 04.55 A.M., but, this fact is falsified from the perusal of entry on ticket Ex.C-1. There is clear interpolation in time mentioned with pen on top of this document. It appears initially it was 04.51 A.M. and then one was converted to five.  Formation of letter five is clearly different. Had she not reported at 04.51 a.m. this time would not have been mentioned thereupon. O.P.-appellant has not  given any explanation about this over-writing. So this fact gives strength to the version of complainant and it cannot be presumed that she did not report in time.  Though this fact is not doubtful, but, even if it is presumed that there is some doubt then the benefit of the same is to be given to the complainant.  As per opinion of Hon’ble National Commission expressed in Revision petition No.4544 of 2012 decided on 27.11.2013 titled as National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Gopanaboina Sathyam and revision petition No.3236 of 2013 decided on 07.08.2014 titled as Sh. Abhishek Jain Vs. HDFC Standard Life Insurance Co. Ltd. benefit of doubt is to be given to consumer. The findings of learned District Forum are well reasoned based on law and facts and cannot be disturbed.  Resultantly appeal fails and the same is hereby dismissed.

9.      The statutory amount of Rs.25000/- deposited at the time of filing of the appeal be refunded to the appellant against proper receipt and identification.

 

October 04th, 2017

Mrs.Urvashi Agnihotri, Member, Addl.Bench

R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member Addl.Bench

S.K.