Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/340/2016

Mankaran Jeet Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

ETIHAD Airways - Opp.Party(s)

Ravinder Kumar Adv.

06 Mar 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH

======

Consumer Complaint  No	:	340 of 2016
Date  of  Institution	:	17.5.2016
Date   of   Decision	:	6.3.2017

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mankaran Jeet Singh son of S. Jatinder Jeet Singh resident of 360, Phase-4, SAS Nagar (Mohali) through his natural Guardian S. Jatinder Jeet Singh (father).

 

                …..Complainant

Versus

 

 

1.  Etihad Airways 2^nd floor, Narain Manzil, 23, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi, through its authorized representative.

Second Address:- Etihad Airways, first floor, Sunder Mahal, 141, Marine Drive, Church Gate, Mumbai 400 020.

 

2. Gem Travel Services, SCO No. 23-27, Sector 34-A, Adjoining Passport office, Chandigarh 160034 through its authorized representative.

….. Opposite Parties

 

 

BEFORE:  SH.RAJAN DEWAN                 PRESIDENT

         MRS.PRITI MALHOTRA             MEMBER

         SH. RAVINDER SINGH             MEMBER

 

 

For complainant(s)      :     Sh. Atul Kaushik, Adv.  

 

For OP No.1             :     Sh. Parveen Jain,  Adv.

 

For OP No.2             :     None

 

 

 

PER RAVINDER SINGH, MEMBER

 

 

     In nutshell, the complainant who is a student of 10^th class was to visit USA from 29.3.2016 to 21.4.2016 and purchased a confirmed Air Ticket from OP No.2 for ETIHAD Airways (OP No.1) with departure on 29.3.2016 at 4.40 a.m for Abu Dhabi and further from Abu Dhabi to Los Angeles.  The grouse of the complainant is that when he reached Abu Dhabi on 29.3.2016,  he was not issued boarding pass from Abu Dhabi to Los Angeles on the ground that the flight is overbooked and the complainant was made to wait at the Airport for 24 hours, as the next flight to Angeles  was to depart on 30.3.2016 and only on 30.3.2016 he was issued pass for the flight to Los Angeles. It is alleged that the complainant despite having a confirmed ticket was not allowed to board the flight to Los Angeles by the OP No.1 as his confirmed seat was given to some other passenger, which caused immense mental and physical harassment to the complainant and he has to make numerous calls to his father and grandfather which generated an exaggerated bill of Rs.11,475/- and the same was paid by his grandfather. Alleging the said act of OPs as deficiency in service, this compliant has been filed.

 

2.     OP NO.1 in its reply has taken preliminary to the effect that this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to decide the instant complaint. The OP No.1 has fairly admitted that the complainant offloaded from the flight from Abu Dhabi to Los Angeles on account of overbooking. It is asserted that overbooking is a practice which is permitted by aviation rules and regulations including IATA General Conditions of Carriage (Passenger and Baggage)  which is necessary particularly on certain sectors where if flights are not overbooked, airlines would have operated flights with a very small passengers load on account of passengers not showing up which results in grave loss of revenue to the airlines. It is further asserted that the complainant was accommodated on the next flight. Further asserted that even OP No.1 is willing to reimburse the actual cost incurred by him. Denying any deficiency on its part is prayed that the complaint be dismissed.
3.     OP NO.2  in its reply while admitting the factual matrix of the case stated that the complainant was issued confirmed air ticket from New Delhi to Los Angeles via Abu Dhabi. It is pleaded that the OP No.2 has no role to play with regard to the allegations levelled in the complaint
4.     The Complainant also filed rejoinder thereby reiterating the averments as made in complaint and controverting that of the Opposite Party No.1 made in the reply.
5.     Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.
6.     We have heard the ld. Counsel for the complainant, ld. Counsel for Opposite Party No.1 and have also perused the record.
7.     Before going into the merit of the case we firstly need to deal with the objection raised by the OP No.1 regarding territorial jurisdiction of this Forum.  After going through Annexure C-2 the e-ticket it is quite obvious that the complainant had booked the same from OP No.2 which is situated at Chandigarh within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum. Hence, this Forum has ample territorial jurisdiction to try and decide the instant complaint and as such the contention raised by OP No.1 in this regard stands rejected.
8.      A meticulous perusal of the record as also submissions of the parties reveal that there is no denial of the factum that the complainant who is minor, was having confirmed ticket to Los Angeles from New Delhi via Abu Dhabi.  It has also been plainly admitted by OP No.1 that the complainant was offloaded from the flight Abu Dhabi to Los Angeles on account of overbooking. The plea of OP No.1 is that overbooking is a practice, which is permitted by Aviation Rules and Regulations, which floating on the internet and are easily available are not sustainable as it is not proved, on record that the complainant who is a minor by age was made aware of such aviation rules before boarding the flight from Delhi or booking the ticket. As such, the OP No.1 cannot put out of sight its negligent act under the garb of aviation rules. Once the complainant was issue confirmed ticket after paying due price thereof it was the bounden duty of the airlines to provide him the booked seat in the flight but it utterly failed to do so and left the complainant alone for 24 hours to suffer mental agony and physical harassment, which is a negligent and deficient act on the part of OP No.1.  

 

9.     Thus, it is crystal clear from the above, discussion that there is clear cut negligence and deficiency on the part of OP No.1 who did not allow the complainant to board in the flight to Los Angeles. Due to this inattention act of the OP No.1 the complainant who is  minor had to go through a lot of mental trauma for 24 hours in a country which is unfamiliar to him.  

 

10.     Keeping in view the above discussion, it is held that OP No.1 is deficient in rendering service and accordingly the complaint is allowed. The OP No.1 shall pay the complainant the expenses incurred by him on telephone call to the tune of Rs.11,475/- and  USD 300 towards denied boarding compensation in Indian rupees apart from paying compensation of Rs.50,000/-  within 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
11.     The above order shall be complied with by OP No.1 within the stipulated period failing which it shall be liable to pay additional cost Rs.50,000/- to the complainant.              

 

    The certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of charge, after which the file be consigned.

Announced

6.3.2017

                                                                                                                                                                                                        Sd/-

 (RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

(PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER

 

Sd/-

(RAVINDER SINGH)

MEMBER

tyle='text-align:right'>MEMBER

 

 

Sd/-

(RAVINDER SINGH)

MEMBER