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

============

M.P. Ghai s/o Sh. Satya Dev Ghai, H.No. 657, Sec.11-B, Chandigarh - 160011.

              ---Complainant

Vs.

1.   Go Airlines (India) Limited, Branch Office at Civil Airport, Air Port Authority of India, Zirakpur Road Near Behlana, Chandigarh – 160003.

2.   Mr. Jef Wadia, Managing Director, Go Airlines (India) Limited, 1^st Floor, C-1, Wadia International Centre (WIC), Pandurang Budhkar Marg, Mumbai – 400025.

3.   Mr. Jahangir Mehta, Vice President, Customer Relations, Go Airlines (India) Limited, 1^st Floor, C-1, Wadia International Centre (WIC), Pandurang Budhkar Marg, Mumbai – 400025.

4.   Mr. Gaurav Sonavane, Customer Care Officer, Go Airlines (India) Limited, 1^st Floor, C-1, Wadia International Centre (WIC), Pandurang Budhkar Marg, Mumbai – 400025.

  ---- Opposite Parties

BEFORE:   MRS.MADHU MUTNEJA            PRESIDING MEMBER

SH. JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU    MEMBER

Argued By:    Complainant in person.

              Sh. Rajesh K. Sharma, Counsel for Opposite Party.

PER MADHU MUTNEJA, PRESIDING MEMBER

1.          The Complainant has booked a passage with the Opposite Parties from Kolkata to Chandigarh for 12.05.2012. The flight had a stop at Delhi. The Complainant paid Rs.18,684/- for two tickets. He had also made a request to arrange for a wheel chair as he had been operated at Kolkata. A copy of the doctor’s certificate was provided to the Opposite Parties, which is on record. When the flight reached Delhi, the passengers were kept in the airplane for one hour. Even water was not offered. Thereafter, they proceeded to Chandigarh. The Plane was delayed at Delhi due to weather conditions. Also, the Pilot brought the Aeroplane back to Delhi. The passengers were not given any details. The Complainant has alleged that he was not provided a wheel chair at the Delhi Airport and could reach the arrival hall of the airport with great difficulty with the help of his son (other passenger), who is not Complainant in the instant complaint. The Complainant has also alleged that they were surprised to know that the help desk of the Opposite Parties did not extend any help at 9.30 at night to the passengers. No water, snacks or dinner were provided. When request was made to the staff of the Opposite Parties to arrange for night stay, the request was declined. After long discussions, the Opposite Parties offered to pay full refund of tickets from Kolkata to Chandigarh as the journey had not been completed. Eventually only Rs.784/- per ticket was refunded. The Complainant has further alleged that he had a tough time at the airport as he had not fully recovered and was on medication. He stayed at a Delhi hotel and next morning arranged an A.C. Taxi to reach Chandigarh. The Complainant has now filed the present complaint with a direction to the Opposite Parties to refund the amount paid for the tickets i.e. Rs.18,686/- less refund Rs.1568/-. He has also prayed for taxi fare, boarding and lodging to the extent of Rs.15,000/-, besides compensation and costs of litigation.      

2.          Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Party seeking its version of the case.

3.          Opposite Parties in their reply have stated that the complaint deserves dismissal on the ground of non-joinder of necessary parties, as the Travel Agent has not been made a party. The Complainant had booked the ticket for journey from Kolkata to Chandigarh on 12.05.2012 with a stop at Delhi. There was no wheel chair request made in advance as per the terms & conditions mentioned at Citizen Charter under the heading of “Your Special Needs” duly displayed at the website www.goair.in. The history of booking of the Complainant also does not reflect any request for wheel chair (extract of the history of the Complainant at Annexure R-1). However, despite this fact the staff of the Opposite Parties at Kolkata airport provided a wheel chair when requested for by the Complainant. The Complainant along with other passengers were not kept in flight without any reason as weather conditions were not appropriate and permission to fly was not given. It took some time to take off from the Delhi Airport and considering the safety of the passengers on board the Pilot did not have any option other than returning back to Delhi. As this was not a scheduled flight, it took sometime to arrange for wheel chair as the passengers were not supposed to get off at Delhi. However, the spontaneous need of the Complainant was duly taken care off. As the flight had returned after taking off from the airport, the staff could not anticipate the eventuality. Therefore no arrangements for either snacks or dinner were made for the passengers. The first priority of the Opposite Parties was to send the passengers to their scheduled destination at the earliest. Further, Opposite Parties never promised any kind of refund to the passengers as travel from Kolkata to Delhi was already complete and passengers were given refund of Rs.784/- for transportation by Volvo bus from Delhi to Chandigarh. Opposite Parties have reproduced Clause 1.4 of the DGCA Civil Aviation Requirements: Section 3 Air Transport Series ‘M’ Part IV, which reads as under:-

“1.4  The operating airline would not have the obligation to pay compensation in cases where the cancellations and delays have been caused by an event(s) of force majeure i.e. extraordinary circumstance(s) beyond the control of the airline, the impact of which lead to the cancellation/ delay of flight(s), and which could not have been avoided even if all reasonable measures had been taken by the airline. Such extra ordinary circumstances may in particular, occur due to political instability, natural disaster, civil war, insurrection or riot, flood, explosion, government regulation or order affecting the aircraft, strikes and labour disputes causing cessation, slowdown or interruption of work or any other factors that are beyond the control of the airline.”  

          Opposite Parties have further stated that they cannot be held responsible for the inconvenience caused to the Complainant due to his medical condition. The indemnity form duly signed by the Complainant’s son has been placed on record at Annexure R-4, which reads as under:- 

“If the flight is re-routed on my account, due to occurrence of any incident ill health or on any other medical ground entire handling cost will be borne by me without any protest or demure.”

          On merits, the Opposite Parties have denied all the contentions made by the Complainant and prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 

4.          The Complainant also filed rejoinder wherein the averments as contained in the complaint have been reiterated and those as alleged in the written statement by the Opposite Parties have been controverted.

5.          Parties were permitted to place their respective evidence on record, in support of their contentions.

6.          We have heard the Complainant in person and learned counsel for the Opposite Parties and have perused the record.

7.          The first grievance of the Complainant is that he was unable to reach his destination by air due to return of the Chandigarh borne flight to Delhi. This allegation has been rebutted by the Opposite Parties, as the flight had to return to Delhi, being unable to land at Chandigarh due to bad weather. The pilot had deemed it prudent to bring the flight back to Delhi. We do not think that any deficiency in service can be attributed to the Opposite Parties on this ground considering the DGCA Civil Aviation Requirements placed on record by the Opposite Parties at Annexure R-3, which have been reproduced above.  

8.          The second grievance of the Complainant is that he was not provided a wheel chair despite the fact that he has given his medical certificate to the Opposite Parties. The Opposite Parties in reply have contended that the Complainant had not made any request for wheel chair at the time of booking the flight and his immediate need was looked after to the best of the abilities of the Opposite Parties at the airport itself. The Complainant was provided a wheel chair at Kolkata, though there was difficulty in Delhi as the dis-embarkment of the passengers at Delhi was not scheduled. To our mind, the reply tendered shows the correct handling of the situation. The request had to be made in advance at the time of booking. The travel agent, if any, is not a party in the complaint.  

9.          The third grievance of the Complainant is that snacks, dinner and water etc. were not provided by the Opposite Parties despite the harassment being caused to the passengers due to delay in flight and even return of the flight back to Delhi. The sequence of events given by the Opposite Parties in their defence shows that the delay was due to an unforeseen eventuality of bad weather and thus, no arrangements could immediately be made by the Opposite Parties to provide food and refreshment to the passengers. We agree that it would not be possible for the Opposite Parties to make immediate arrangements for stay and food for the passengers. It is also not a requirement as per the DGCA Civil Aviation Requirements, already reproduced above. 

10.        The next grievance of the Complainant is that the Complainant was not refunded the air fare as promised by the Opposite Parties. There is no evidence placed on record by the Complainant to show that full amount was to be refunded to him. The amount of Rs.18,684/- was for two tickets. The second passenger is not a party to the complaint. Otherwise also, the refund could be made only for the cost of travel from Delhi to Chandigarh for both the passengers. However, it is reiterated here that the second passenger is not a party to the lis. The undertaking signed by the second passenger at Annexure R-4 shows that he is definitely not minor and hence needs to file his own separate complaint against the Opposite Parties. However, the refund of Rs.784/- to the Complainant towards Volvo Bus fare by the Opposite Parties to our mind is unjustified, as the actual proportionate air fare for the ticket bought by the Complainant from Delhi to Chandigarh should have been refunded. As the actual cost incurred by the Complainant for hiring the A.C. Taxi and hotel is not on record, the claimed compensation on this account cannot be given. 

11.        As per the averments of the Opposite Parties only Volvo bus fare has been given to the passenger. As air fare has not been refunded by the Opposite Parties to the Complainant, we deem it appropriate to allow the present complaint with a direction to the Opposite Parties to give a consolidated amount of Rs.3,000/- as compensation to the Complainant for not refunding the proportionate air fare as applicable from Delhi to Chandigarh.

12.        This order be complied with by the opposite parties within 45 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which the decreed amount will carry interest @12% p.a. from the date of this order till actual payment.

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

Announced

05^th June, 2013                            

  Sd/-

(MADHU MUTNEJA)

PRESIDING MEMBER

Sd/-

(JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU)

MEMBER