STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

                                    U.T., CHANDIGARH 

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

                                                                                          …Appellant

                                         V e r s u s

1. Dr.Vanita Ahuja wife of Sh. Anupam Ahuja, resident of House No.813, Sector 7, Panchkula, Haryana.
2. Make My Trip.com, SCO No.43-44, Level-I, Madhya Marg, Sector-8, Chandigarh.

                                                                           ...Respondents

 Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection          Act, 1986 against   order dated 11.01.2017 passed by                   District   Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I,                U.T.Chandigarh in Consumer Complaint No.201/2016..

Argued by:    Mr.S R Chaudhuri, Advocate for the appellant.

 BEFORE: JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT.                                                    MR.DEV RAJ, MEMBER

                   MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

PER JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT

                   Appellant/Opposite Party No.2 has filed this appeal against order dated 11.1.2017 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T., Chandigarh (in short ‘the Forum’ only), allowing a complaint filed by respondent No.1/complainant.

 2.            In her complaint, it was stated by the complainant that she is a doctor, she was invited to participate in a conference scheduled to be held from 31.10.2014 to 2.11.2014 at Jammu.   It was intimated to her by OP No.1 that there was no direct flight from Chandigarh to Jammu.  She will have to first go to  Delhi to board flight to Jammu.  OP No.1 arranged two tickets. Chandigarh flight, operated by the appellant was scheduled to depart from Chandigarh Airport on 31.10.2014 at 11.5 hrs. and it was to arrive at Delhi Airport at 12.15 hrs. She was to board flight from Delhi to Jammu at 2.30 P.M. She reached at Chandigarh Airport on 3.10.2014 at 10.00 A.M. and reported at the counter of appellant airlines.  She was intimated that the flight was late by 30 minutes.  She was not offered any alternative. Even refund of the ticket amount was not offered.  The flight ultimately took off at 12.50 P.M.  and reached New Delhi Airport at 1.40 P.M. against the scheduled arrival time of 12.15 hrs. Even luggage was not received at the converse belt , despite requests made to the staff of the appellant.  As she was not provided any help by the staff of the appellant, she reached at domestic airport at 2.05 P.M. The officers of OP No.3 did not allow her to board the scheduled flight. On making repeated requests, luggage was finally delivered at 4.00 P.M. She hired a taxi for boarding bus  and reached Jammu .  It was stated by the complainant that all the Opposite Parties were guilty of providing deficient service and further they had adopted unfair trade practice by not giving proper help to her in making her journey comfortable. 

3.              All the Opposite Parties filed their respective written statements.  OP No.1 stated that it only booked tickets and had nothing to do, so far as operation of the flight was concerned.

       Appellant/OP No.2 did not dispute the factual matrix.  An attempt was made to shift  burden on the complainant by stating she had not scheduled her flight in a proper manner. It was further stated that due to congestion at the Delhi Airport, flight was delayed.

       In the same manner, OPs No.3 & 4 denied their liability to compensate the complainant/respondent No.1. 

4.            All parties led evidence. The Forum, on analysis of pleadings of the parties, documents attached, and the arguments addressed, allowed the complaint on 29.9.2016, by granting following relief to the complainant ;

(i)     To pay to the complainant Rs.25,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment caused to her;

(ii)    To pay to the complainant Rs.5,000/- as costs of litigation

The amount awarded was to be paid within a stipulated period, failing which, it was to entail penal interest.

                     5.             Counsel for the appellant has vehemently contended that the District Forum was not justified in fastening liability upon the appellant.  The flight was late by 30 minutes on account of congestion at Delhi Airport.   It was further stated that the District Forum had  no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. The complaint should have been filed at Delhi. Similar contentions  were rejected by the Forum, by observing as under ;

“However, from the facts and circumstances of the case, it becomes evident that there is definite deficiency in service on the part of OP-2.  The contention that the District Forum at Chandigarh has got no cause of action to entertain and try the complaint, is without any merit because the cause of action in this case is continuous in nature.  Since the aircraft did not leave Chandigarh at the appointed time, therefore, the complainant could not board the connecting flight from New Delhi to Jammu belonging to OPs 3 & 4 on 31.10.2014. The complainant had to reach Jammu through bus and had to suffer inconvenience on account of the deficiency in service on the part of OP-2. The contention that the complainant was intimated about the delay in arrival of the aircraft at 10:00 a.m. on 31.10.2014 and she could reschedule her journey immediately is also without any merit because the complainant had already reached the Chandigarh Airport and there was no occasion for her to make alternate arrangement. Rather, it was the duty of OP-2 to have made some alternate arrangement for the stranded passengers which OP-2 did not care to make. Although the complainant has claimed compensation to the tune of Rs.1.00 lakh for mental harassment, stress and humiliation faced by her besides refund of the ticket expenses of Rs.12,964/- and litigation expenses, yet the  compensation to be awarded to the complainant has to be in commensuration with the deficiency in service on the part of OP-2.  Moreover, it is cardinal principle of law that no exorbitant or excessive compensation is to be awarded and compensation has to be awarded just to compensate the actual loss occasioned to the complainant. The contention of counsel for OPs 1, 3 & 4 is quite reasonable and acceptable and the counsel for the complainant could not rebut the reasoning of the counsel for those parties. In such a situation, the defence offered by OPs 1, 3 & 4 is reasonable and, therefore, they are not required to be burdened with any compensation or costs.  Since the complainant has availed the services of OP-2 for her journey from Chandigarh to New Delhi, therefore, the cost of the ticket is also not required to be refunded. Similarly, any expenses incurred by the complainant for reaching Chandigarh airport as well as domestic airport at New Delhi/Majnu Ka Tila Delhi are also not refundable to her. However, the complainant is required to be adequately compensated for mental agony and physical pain experienced by her on account of deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice on the part of OP-2 and we hold OP-2 to be deficient in service.”

7.         It was rightly said that the Forum, at Chandigarh, had the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. The flight was booked at Chandigarh. Payment, through internet, was made at Chandigarh and further the  flight was  also to start from Chandigarh. Not only as above, it was rightly said that the delay  of one hour and 25 minutes, in operating the flight from Chandigarh to Delhi, was not properly explained. It was intimated to the complainant when she reached at Chandigarh airport at 10.00 A.M. that the flight was late by 30 minutes. Had that flight took off after a delay of 30 minutes, the complainant would have reached Delhi airport in time.  However, the flight took off   after a delay of 1hour and 25 minutes.  No explanation has been given why the flight was late. There is nothing on record to show that there was any congestion at the Delhi airport.  It is also on record that when flight reached at Delhi airport, no efforts were made by the staff of the appellant posted there  to release the luggage quickly and provided any  help  to  reach her  the counter of OPs No.3 & 4 to board the flight to Jammu.   In view of the above, no case is made out to interfere in the order, under challenge.

8.               For the reasons recorded above, the appeal, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed, at the preliminary stage, with no order as to costs. The order of the District  Forum is upheld.

9.               Certified copies of this order, be sent to the parties, free of charge.

10.              The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.

Pronounced.

28.03.2017