Order-19.
Date-17/03/2017.
Shri Kamal De, President.
This is an application u/s.12 of the C.P. Act, 1986.
The case of the complainant, in short, is that he purchased ticket against the HDFC Banks credit card for himself and four of his family members from Etihad Airways (OP1). The details of the tickets have been furnished in the petition of complaint amounting total to Rs.5,87,484/-. OP is flag carrier and the second largest airline of the United Arab Emirates. The complainant had applied for SIPC VISA for UAE through his travel agent M/s. Caravan Travels of 8, Ho-Chi-Minh Sarani, Kolkata – 700 071 online on 04-04-2016 for himself and the members of his family and he was informed that necessary VISA will be made available 12 days prior to stop over at Abu Dhabi on 10-06-2016. VISA was issued and the complainant and the members of his family were received via their travel agent Caravan Travels who forwarded them and asked them to print them and go directly to immigration. Regarding hotel voucher, the complainant and the members of his family were to contact Transfer Desk at Abu Dhabi Airport. The complainant did the needful and Immigration Desk demanded original VISA for Aanvi Kanoria, the daughter of the complainant as that was not an E-Visa like others. The said daughter of the complainant Aanvi Kanoria was very upset and stressed as she might have spent the night (17-18 hours) at Abu Dhabi Airport before next flight if the original Visa was not produced. The Transfer Desk also did not have the original visa and after one and a half hours they managed to produce the same. The complainant and the members of his family had to waste almost two hours and go through the mental trauma and harassment because of deficiency of service on the part of the local office of Etihad Airlines. It is also alleged by the complainant that the complainant and the members of his family did what they were advised to but they had to suffer due to the deficiency of service on the part of the local office of the OP Airlines. The complainant took up the issue with OP Airlines but the OP Airlines did not apologize for the entire episode and offered 10,000 Etihad guest miles to Aanvi Kanoria and 5000 Miles to complainant and which was not acceptable to them. it is also stated that the complainant is a regular business class passenger and was not provided the level of service expected from a reputed airlines like Etihad Airways, OP.
It is also alleged that while undertaking the travel the suitcase of the complainant of ‘Remova’ make was cracked and damaged and was irreparable due to mishandling by the Etihad Airlines personnel. It is alleged that there was gross negligence in handling the cheque in luggage. Moreover, the cheque in luggage was received after considerable delay. It is also alleged that the luggage was priority luggage, it came towards the end. The complainant brought the said fact under the notice of the Customer Care Deptt of OP Airlines through repeated calls and they offered the complainant compensation initially through phone of an amount of Rs.28,000/- as the value of the suitcase after deducting 30 percent depreciation. The complainant did not accept their offer as the luggage was not in good condition and the complainant asked the Etihad Airlines to replace or provide full replacement cost but the OP came up with an offer of maximum of USD 150 if the complainant did not produce a copy of invoice for the said suitcase purchased by him. The complainant has alleged that the suitcase was in perfect condition while checking in. The complainant has also alleged that he is a frequent business class traveller and maintained the suitcase in presentable condition. The cost of the suitcase was found through internet to be Euro 500 and as such, the complainant did not accept such proposal. It is alleged that the suitcase is not at all suitable for travel anymore. The complainant has prayed for compensation and also for cost towards the price of the suitcase along with other reliefs. Hence this case.
OP Airline has contested the case in filing written version contending, inter alia, that the present complaint is not maintainable against the OP as there has been no deficiency in service on the part of the OP. It is stated that the present complaint has been filed in the name of Mr. Adarsh Kanoria and family whereas the allegations in the complaint show that the alleged aggrieved person is actually Ms. Aanvi Kanoria in respect of whom the allegation is that she had to wait 1 and ½ hours at Abu Dhabi Airport as it took some time for her original Abu Dhabi Transit Visa to arrive at the Etihad Travel Desk. It is also stated that one Mr. Kushagra Kanoria had alleged the damaged package report. Hence, the present complaint having been filed in the name of Adarsh Kanoria is not maintainable.
It is also stated that no loss or injury has been alleged to have suffered by the complainant in whose name the complaint is filed. It is also stated that the tickets were indeed purchased by the complainant for travel to UAE through a travel agent for travel at Etihad Airways Flight and Etihad Airways were the sponsor for the travel VISA of the complainants and his family members and the complainant is one of the co-passengers. It is stated that the sponsor is limited to collect all the necessary documents together with the VISA application form and free from a passenger and submitting the same to UAE Immigration Authorities. It is also required to provide a copy of VIS upon arrival. It is also stated that VISAs were applied for all the complaint passengers by Etihad Airways acting as the sponsor and while E-Visa were issued for co-passengers including the complainant a paper VISA was issued in favour of Ms. Aanvi Kanoria by the Immigration Authorities. It is also stated that as a security check procedure a passenger may be asked to produce the original copy of his/her VISA which is available at the Airport Visa Counter and is released to a passenger upon showing the original passport. When Ms. Aanvi Kanoria was asked by Immigration Authority at the Airport to produce the original VISA, the original paper VISA had to be procured from the Airport Visa Counter on production of the original passport of Ms. Aanvi Kanoria. It is stated that the original VISA was retrieved and handed over to Aanvi Kanoria in less than two hours whereafter she was able to clear immigration and was taken to the hotel, which had been booked for the complainant and the passengers. It is stated that there was no deficiency of service on the part of the OP.
It is also stated that alleged offer of guest miles made by the OP to the complainant and his daughter was purely a gesture of goodwill and did not amount to any admission of liability. It is also denied that the suitcase was cracked and damaged irreparable due to mishandling of the staff of the OP and there was gross negligence in handling the check in package. It is stated that there was a minor crack on the side of the bag which was obviously a result of routine of wear and tear. It is also stated that the suitcase in question was three years old and the OP made a fair offer of compensating the complainant with the depreciated value of suitcase by offering 30 percent less than Rs.28,000/- and the complainant refused demanding the price of a new bag. It is also stated that the complainant was unable to support his claim that the suitcase was purchased for Rs.28,000/- by producing any copy of the invoice. It is also denied that the package of the complainant was received after considerable delay. It is stated that no Airline can say as to which passengers package will arrive first on the package belt. It is stated that the allegation is frivolous. It is denied that there was deficiency on the part of the OP Airlines. This OP has prayed for dismissal of the case.
Point for Decision
- Whether the OP has been deficient in rendering service to the complainant?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get the relief as prayed for?
Decision with Reasons
We have gone through the documents on record as filed from the side of the complainant i.e copies of air-tickets issued by Caravan Travels along with boarding passes, copy of statement of HDFC Bank for the credit card amounting to Rs.5,87,484/-, copy of travel itinerary, copies of correspondences/emails in between the parties on different dates, copies of Visas, copy of damaged package report issued by OP Airways, copy of photographs of damaged suitcase and other documents on record.
It appears that the complainant purchased five business class tickets for a trip from Kolkata to Abu Dhabi, Abu Dhabi-Munich, Zuri-Abu Dhabi and Abu Dhabi - back to Kolkata upon payment of Rs.5,87,484/- from the OP Airlines through their agent Caravan Travels. It is also appears that the complainant applied for necessary SIPC VISA for UAE through the OP Airlines and was assured that the VISA would be available prior to stop over at Abu Dhabi scheduled on 10-06-2016. It also appears that the print out of VISAs were mailed to the complainant by the OPs before 28-05-20216 with direction to come directly to Immigration Counter at Abu Dhabi Airport on 10-06-2016. The complainant and members of his family went at the Immigration Counter at Abu Dhabi Airport and produced copy of VISAs but the Immigration Desk at Abu Dhabi Airport demanded original VISA for Aanvi Kanoria, daughter of the complainant. It also appears that Airline Authorities failed and neglected to hand over the original VISA of Aanvi Kanoria knowing fully well that the original VISA at the Immigration Counter is required and after two hours immigration was cleared. So, it is apparent that the complainant and the members of his family had to spend two hours in the Airport with anxiety and uncertainty. It is apparent that OP Airways is 2nd largest in the UAE and high degree by performance is expected from them. Moreover, the complainant and the members of his family were availing business class. It is expected that when a person travels by Air with a reputed Airlines he expects due courtesy and service. We find that the complainant and the members of his family had to wait at the Immigration Counter at Abu Dhabi for deficiency of service on the part of the OP - Air Line.
We also find that a ‘Remova’ suitcase belonging to Aanvi Kanoria was found cracked, damaged and irreparable. It is stated by the complainant that the said suitcase was in new condition but the OPs denied the same and offered Rs.28,000/- with deduction of 30 percent as depreciation and the OP also demanded the original invoice of the suitcase. We think that OP Airlines cannot ask the complainant to produce the bill or voucher in respect of the bag in question when it was damaged for the deficiency on the part of the OPs. It has also transpired from the evidences on record that a fragile sticker was fixed on the suitcase to draw attention of the staff member to handle the suitcase with care. Moreover, the Airlines never denied that the suitcase is of ‘Remova’ brand. The quality and standard of service has to be decided on the anvil of definition provided by Section 2(1)(g) of C.P. Act which means any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance required to be maintained or has been undertaken to be performed by a person in pursuance of a contract or otherwise in relation to an agreement. We find that there was fault and imperfection and shortcoming and inadequacy in the performance of service on behalf of the OP Airlines.
We hold that the OP has delayed around two hours in presenting the original VISA. The suitcase ‘Remova’ was also damaged for the mishandling by the staff of the OP Airlines. We hold that the complainant and members of his family suffered mental agony and harassment for the fault, imperfection and deficiency in service on the part of the OP.
Ld. Lawyer appearing for the OP has argued that the case is not maintainable as the VISA relates to Aanvi Kanoria and the case is filed by the complainant himself. We find that the complainant purchased the tickets in favour of Ms. Aanvi Kanoria being daughter of the complainant and other members of his family, so she is the beneficiary and the payment was made by the complainant. The case is as such maintainable as filed by the complainant. The price of the ticket was borne by the complainant himself and there is no bar in the C.P. Act to file the case by the father for her daughter.
It is apparent from the evidences and materials on record that OP admitted in an unequivocal terms that there had been delay around two hours for presenting the original VISA and that the suitcase of ‘Remova’ brand was also damaged during transportation. So, it is established beyond all reasonable doubt that OPs have been deficient in rendering services to the complainant and, as such, is liable to pay compensation and to pay the price of bag. Compensation we think can be awarded to consumer in respect of loss or injury found to have been suffered by him due to negligence of the OP. We find the allegations made in the complaint are found to be true. It is argued from the side of the OPs that the complainant has not produced any receipt for the said suitcase to establish its price but we find that the cost of the bag as found through internet is Euro 500 i.e. Rs.38,000/-. It is not expected that a person will preserve the invoice assuming that the bag/suit case may be lost or damaged and the price to be claimed for the damaged one from the service provider. So, the contention of the OP that the copy of invoices is not produced as regards of the price of bank is not acceptable or reasonable to us. Moreover, the deficiency lies on the part of the OP and the OP cannot swim against the tide or shift the onus on the complainant. Moreover, a person cannot move about with a damaged bag and cannot also use it. So, the damaged bag is of no utility to a consumer/person any more.
As a logical follow up of the discussion as made in earlier paragraphs we hold that OP has been deficient in rendering services to the complainant and is liable to pay compensation for causing harassment, mental pain and agony along with the price of the damaged suitcase.
Consequently, the case merits success.
Hence,
Ordered
That the instant case be and the same is allowed on contest against the OP.
OP is directed to pay an amount of Rs.38,000/-(Rupees Thirty eight thousand only) towards the cost of suitcase/luggage damaged due to mishandling apart from litigation cost of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) within one month from the date of this order.
OP is also directed to pay an amount of Rs.1,00,000/-(Rupees One lakh only) to the complainant as compensation for causing harassment, mental pain and agony and deficiency in service within the said stipulated period.
Failure to comply with the order will entitle the complainant to put the order into execution u/s.25 read with Section 27 of the C.P. Act and in that case OP shall be liable to pay penal damage @Rs.5,000/- per month to be paid to this Forum till full and final satisfaction of the decree.
