Complaint presented on  :     07.02.2013

                                                                   Order pronounced on     :     09.03.2015

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI(NORTH)

    2^nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C.Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

PRESENT: THIRU.K.JAYABALAN, B.Sc., B.L.,         :      PRESIDENT

                    TMT.T.KALAIYARASI, B.A.B.L.,                   :       MEMBER II

   MONDAY THE  09^th DAY OF MARCH 2015

C.C.NO.36/2013

Thavasu.M. Vellathambi

Rep. by his power Agent

V.Kanagasundaram

at No.21, Plaza Centre, IInd Floor,

129, G.N.Chetty Road, Chennai – 600 006.                                ...  Complainant

..Vs..

Emirates Airlines

Rep. by The Customer Affairs Manager (India)

at No.12 & 13, 1-C/D, Riaz Gardens,

Kodambakkam High Road,

Nungambakkam, Chennai – 600 034.

Date of complaint         :        07.02.2013

For Complainant               :        M/s. N.S. Manoharan & I.Lakshmana  Shankar               

For Opposite party           :        M/s. Smt.Deepa Harigovind , Vikram.T.Phillip,

                                                Kawashaw T.Jagose,

O R D E R

THIRU.K.JAYABALAN, PRESIDENT               

          Complaint filed  under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 for a direction to the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation for the pain and suffering  and to pay a sum of  Rs.10,000/- towards costs of the complaint. 

1. Complaint in brief :

The complainant  travelled as a passenger from Chennai to Dubai in  the opposite party flight no.EK547 in seat no.22G.  When the complainant boarded the flight, a staff of Airlines attending  on some  repairs in  the seat no.22G and  they unable to repair and requested the complainant to adjust in the seat with a promise to find him an alternate seat.  The opposite party  failed to allot to the complainant an alternate seat and they have not repaired the seat and also  not provided seat belt.  The complainant faced nightmare during takeoff and landing.   Hence the opposite party has committed deficiency in service. The complainant preferred a claim dated 15.05.2012 with opposite party for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-. The opposite party sent a reply dated 30.05.2012 assured  to do all possible and they will sent a detailed reply in 30 days.   Then the complainant sent a letter dated 14.06.2012 for settlement. The opposite party gave a reply dated 19.07.2012 profusely apologizing for the problems suffered by the complainant. Then the complainant sent a legal notice dated 26.07.2012 to the opposite party, however the opposite party acknowledged the same, did not give any reply.  Hence the complainant filed this complaint claiming a compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- with cost of the complaint Rs.10,000/-.

2.       Written version in brief:

      The opposite party admits that the complainant travelled in seat no.22G of the opposite party flight had a seat beat in working condition and in this respect the allegation made by the complainant is false. The problem in the seat was  that   the seat could not be moved up or down, as it was stuck at a particular angle.  It may be pertinent to point out that in economy, the seats tilt about  6 inches back as a  recline, in this case  the seat was struck in the recline position. The flight was fully booked and no seats were available and hence the alternative seat could not be changed. The allegation is that the complainant has  undergone a nightmare is denied. The efforts taken by the opposite party to recline the seat could not be rectify and the same had to be fixed at Dubai. The complainant made a claim with the opposite party.  The opposite party replied to the said claim  of the complainant and apologized for the inconvenience  caused for any  discomfort because the seat  could not move and offered to credit 1000 skyward  miles if the complainant  becomes  a member of the frequent flyer programme of this opposite party  and also agreed  to credit  miles on retrospective travels.   The miles can be exchanged for tickets or for upgrades on subsequent travels.  However   the said  offer was not  accepted by the complainant.  Therefore the opposite party have not committed any deficiency in service  and prays to dismiss the complaint.

3.       The Complainant had filed  his proof affidavit and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A9 were  marked  on the side of the complainant.  The opposite party filed his proof affidavit and  Ex.B1 to Ex.B2  were marked on the side of the opposite party  

4. The points for consideration

1)  Whether  the opposite party committed  deficiency in service?

2)   To what relief the complainant is entitled?

5. POINT NO : 1

             The admitted facts are that the complainant  travelled as a passenger from Chennai to Dubai  in the opposite party flight no.EK547 in seat no.22G and the said seat did not recline  and the staff of Airlines attending on some repairs in  the seat no.22G and requested the complainant to adjust  and travel in the seat with a promise to find him an alternate seat and however the flight was full and therefore the opposite party could not find him an alternate set to the complainant.

6.          The complainant contented that  the seat in a broken condition and did not recline and further seat belt  was also not provided and therefore during  takeoff and landing the complainant has undergone nightmare and therefore the opposite party  committed deficiency in service.    The opposite party contented that the said seat was having seat belt and however the seat having some defects and the staff of the Airlines also attempted to rectify the same and they could not do so, further the same could be rectified only at Duabi and  such a defect is only an inconvenience to the complainant and the same has been  not done by the opposite party wantonly and further as per the judgment  of the Supreme Court reported in  III (2011) CPJ 1 (SC)  INTERCLOBE AVATION LTD  Vs   N. SACHIDANAND para  40 that  inconvenience caused to the passenger not a deficiency in service  and therefore  in  the case in hand also the inconvenience caused to the complainant that the seat did not recline is not a deficiency in service  and therefore prays to dismiss the complaint. 

              The allegation of the complainant that the opposite party has committed deficiency  1) Seat belt not provided and 2) broken seat allotted to him.  Ex.A1 claim  written by the complainant to the opposite party.  In the said letter the complainant mentioned that  the seat allotted to him he could not wear the seat belt since the seat was broken and the seat was not in usable condition and that caused mental agony to him.   As contended by the opposite party counsel seat belt was provided in the seat and however the same could not be used by the complainant  was during in the travel, since the seat was broken and did not recline or lean backwards.  Ex.A1 evidences  that the  complainant travelled in the said seat   without using the seat belt, since the same is not in usable condition. Normally when the passengers travelled in the flight, the crews themselves announces drawing the attention of the passengers  to wear the seat belt for safe travel.  However in this case the complainant was unable to  wore the seat belt because of the defect in the seat. The staff of the opposite party themselves attended the defects in the seats and admitted in the written version that the seat was struck in the particular angle and the seats tilt for  about 6 inches  back as a recline in the economy class and the seat was struck in the recline position.  Because the defective seat with unusable condition belt allotted to the complainant certainly falls under the definition of the deficiency in service  committed by the opposite party. 

7.          The opposite party would contend that they have offered many things to the complainant since some inconvenience  was caused to the complainant during travel and the same was not accepted by the  complainant.  Because of such offerings made to the complainant,  it cannot be said that the opposite party  not committed deficiency in service.  

8.          The  facts in the judgment of the Supreme Court referred by the opposite party is that   the passenger in the said judgment booked ticket to travel on Indigo Flight  no. 6C-301 from  Delhi to Hyderabad on 14.12.2007 schedule to depart at 6.15 am and the passenger in the said case boarded the flight at round 5.45 a.m and due to dense fog, bad weather  and   poor visibility at Delhi Airport the flight was delayed and further ATC (Air Traffic Control) clearance  was not given and further around 11.15 am the above said flight was cancelled and the passenger were  offered the options (a)  refund of air fare or (b)  credit for future travel on indigo or (c) rebooking onto an alternate indigo flight at no additional cost and  the said passenger opted to travel with the next flight no. 6E-305 which was scheduled to depart at 12.15 p.m subject to improvement in whether conditions and clearance by air traffic control  and  even flight was also delayed due to weather conditions and also for ATC clearance and in the meantime sandwitches was provided then and there and finally the ATC clearance was given at 4.20 p.m and flight departure 4.37 pm  and reached Hyderabad around 7.00 p.m and considering the these facts the Hon’ble Supreme Court held in para 40 of the judgment that   passengers forced to sit in a narrow seat for 11 hours, underwent considerable physical hardship and agony an account of delay, but it was not as a consequence of  deficiency in service, negligence or want of facilitation by them and therefore the passenger is  not entitled for compensation.

9.          The delay of 11 hours made the passenger to sit in a seat happened due to bad weather condition and for want of ATC clearance to takeoff the flight, which is   the beyond the control of the  flight operator.  Whereas in the case in hand  the seat allotted to  the complainant is a broken and defective seat and because of that he could not use the seat belt and therefore the above referred judgment of the Supreme Court of India is not applicable to the facts of the case in hand.   The opposite party ought to have rectified the seat before the passengers boarded on the flight.   In case if they could not rectify the seat, atleast they could have offered to the complainant  to travel in some other flight  or refund of the fair as offered in the above referred judgment of the Supreme Court.   Without giving any choice to the complainant and made the complainant to travel in a broken seat,  establishes that the opposite party committed deficiency in service and accordingly this point is answered.

10. POINT NO:2

          Since the complainant was forced to travel in a broken seat from Chennai to Dubai and he had faced difficulties and hardship without wearing the seat belt during the takeoff and landing of the flight certainly caused mental agony to the complainant is acceptable and  in view of the same the complainant in entitled for compensation. The complainant claimed a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation is on higher side and it would be reasonable to order a  sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation to the complainant would meet ends of justice  besides a sum of  Rs. 3,000/- as cost of the complaint and accordingly this point is answered.  

In the result the complaint is allowed in part.  The opposite party is directed to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/-(Rupees fifty thousand only) towards compensation to the complainant, besides  a sum of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees three thousand only) as cost of the complaint.  The opposite party is directed to pay the above amounts  within 6 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order, failing which the  above said amounts  shall carry  interest at the rate of 9%  per annum  till the date of payment

Dictated to the steno-typist transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us on this 09^th day of March 2015.

          MEMBER-II                                                                       PRESIDENT

COMPLAINANT SIDE DOCUMENTS:

OPPOSITE PARTY SIDE DOCUMENT:

               MEMBER-II                                                    PRESIDENT