Order No. 6 date: 07-07-2017

Sri Shyamal Gupta, Member

This Appeal is directed against the Order dated 05-01-2016 passed by the Ld. District Forum, Kolkata, Unit II in C.C. No. 259/2015.

A complaint was filed by one Dr. Amitav Banerji against Air India alleging gross deficiency in service on the part of the latter on account of its failure to ensure punctuality in maintaining time schedule and/or making alternative arrangements for the hapless passengers like him to reach the intended destination in time.  As per original schedule, the concerned flight was scheduled to take off from Kolkata Airport at 10 a.m. on 18-01-2015 and reach New Delhi at 12.05 p.m.  However, after reaching the airport, he came to know from one official at the check in counter that the said flight got delayed due to fog.  As the Complainant was supposed to catch another flight at New Delhi Airport to proceed for Birmingham, he requested the concerned officials of the OPs to make some alternative arrangements for him, but in vain. Ultimately, the flight reached New Delhi around 6 p.m. on 18-01-2015.  Allegedly, the Complainant was not provided with drinking water by the OP Airline on demand.  Further, at the Delhi airport, there was no official of the OPs to assist the Complainant and other stranded passengers to make necessary arrangement for overnight stay at the hotel; there was no transport either to take them to the hotel.  The OPs also did not accord him due privilege of making free calls to his family members in contravention of International Rules.  It is stated that as he was not prepared for such eventuality, in absence of night clothes, he had to spent whole night in trousers and shirt.  The next morning, i.e., on 19-01-2015, although weather was bright, the Birmingham flight did not start in time on the plea that Amritsar passengers did not reach airport even after two hours of scheduled time.  Here, it is alleged by the Complainant that although he was informed the earlier day that the international flight to Birmingham cannot be delayed because of them, the Amritsar passengers were treated differently which was a clear instance of double-standard.  Ultimately, the international flight reached its destination 27 hours late vis-à-vis the scheduled time.  Taking strong exception to such unprofessional attitude and gross deficiency in service, the Complainant filed the complaint.

By filing WV, OPs submitted that due to heavy fog  at Delhi on 18-01-2015, the flight did not reach Kolkata airport in time leading to some delay in starting the flight from Kolkata airport which was an event of force majeure.  Due to late arrival of AI-021 at Delhi, the Complainant could not board AI-113 to Birmingham on 18-01-2015.  Due to non-availability of seats in other flights with whom the OPs had interline agreement, the Complainant could not be accommodated to other flights.  The OPs stated that if he so desired, the Complainant himself could make alternative arrangements and in that case, he would get refund of full fare from the OPs.   The OPs denied any laches on their part and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

Decision with reasons

It appears, the Ld. District Forum found fault with the Appellant on several counts.  First, on going through the weather report, the Ld. District Forum found that though Punjab, Haryana, Delhi, Uttar Pradesh and Rajasthan got affected due to fog on 17-01-2015, it was not the case on 18-01-2015.  Secondly, the Ld. District Forum found that save and except the Appellant, all other carriers maintained their time schedule.  Therefore, in the opinion of the Ld. District Forum, Appellant could not be an exception.  Thirdly, the Ld. District Forum took a grim view of the fact that the Respondent No. 1 was not accorded due facilities as mandated under the international law.  Fourthly, the Ld. District Forum also held the Appellant guilty of deficiency in service for transgressing Clause 3.5.3 and 3.1.2 of the Civil Aviation Regulations. 

Despite preferring this Appeal, I find that the Appellant has not given any satisfactory explanation as to the instances of laches in its services as pointed out by the  Ld. District Forum. 

Surely, as a passenger, the Respondent No. 1 deserved utmost value of his hard-earned money that he paid for buying air tickets for himself.  After realizing money from consumers, Appellants cannot treat them as it pleases.  It is for the management of the Appellant to ensure that discipline/accountability is enforced in the functioning of its officials if it really means business. 

The grounds taken by the Appellants in its Appeal all fall flat on the face of emerging facts out of the documents on record.  That being so, the impugned order hardly calls for any sort of interference from this end. I, therefore, deem it just and proper to uphold the impugned order in toto.

The Appeal, thus, fails being devoid of any merit.

Hence,

O R D E R E D

That A/97/2016 be and the same is dismissed on contest against the Respondent No. 1.  The impugned order is hereby affirmed.  No order as to costs.