ORDER

SRI.H.R. SRINIVAS.  PRESIDENT

1.     This is the Complaint filed by the Complainant against the Opposite Parties (herein referred to as OPs) under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying this Commission to direct the OPs to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- as damages for their negligence and deficiency of service and for causing pain and suffering for the complainants  and for costs and such other reliefs as the Hon’ble District Commission deems fit and under circumstances.

2.     The brief facts of the complaint are that, the Complainant No.1 and 2 are the husband and wife booked two tickets with Air India Ltd., to travel from Bangalore to Mumbai in Flight No. A1-604 scheduled on 14.01.2017.  The flight was to start at 08.50 hours at Bangalore and to reach the airport at Mumbai at 10.30 hours. Since Complainant No.2 was having “tail bone” problem and as she could not sit in a cramped posture, by taking abundant caution, they booked the seat No.04A and 04B in the front row seat by paying Rs.500/- extra for each of the seats.  Electronic receipt was also issued by OP.No.1. In the said receipt, it is clearly mentioned that, the seat are not transferable not refundable. When they reached the airport and sought for boarding pass they were given the boarding pass, and they thought that the reserved seats has been allotted to them as they have blocked the same by paying Rs.500/- each for the said seat and did not check the boarding pass in respect of the seats allotted. When they entered into the air craft they found that somebody had already occupied seat No.4A and 4B on the first row which was blocked by them. Instead they were given seat 5A and 5B in the second road and same was questioned with the crew member. They contacted the ground staff who gave the boarding pass and afterwards they requested the persons who have occupied seat No.4A and 4B for exchange. They refused to shift. Thereafter the cabin crew did not help them.  The cabin crew also instructed him to lodge a complaint in the aircraft log book and they have registered a complaint in the said log book.

3.     The duration of the flight from Bangalore to Mumbai was 90 minutes. Since the complainant No.2  was having ‘tail bone’ problem since June 2016, she was visiting the senior orthopedic surgeon under the circumstances, by sitting in seat No.5A in a cramped posture for 90 minutes, without any enough legs room, has aggravated her pain and the very purpose of paying Rs.500/- to each of the seats and reserving for them has become redundant and completely defeated the purpose have booking the said seats.  Reminder letters, correspondences and emails were exchanged and OP No.1 offered to refund Rs.1,000/- only which was taken by them from the complainants in respect of reserving the said seat, which they did not accept. Legal notice was also issued for having caused negligent service. They had filed the complaint No.CC.No.2476/2017 before the IV Additional Consumer Forum against the present OP.No.3 only and after the advise of their counsel with a permission and liberty to file a new complaint they withdrew the same and filed this complaint.  

4. The condition of complainant No.2 aggravated due to gross negligence of the OPs and they were put to great hardship, unbearable mental agony on account of negligent act of OPs. They had to incur medical expenses to treat the complainant No.2. The cause for the complaint arose on 14.01.2017 when they were denied the reserved seats for them. In view of the negligent act and deficiency of service on the part of OPs, have filed this complaint.

5.     Upon the service of notice, OPs appeared before the forum and have filed their version admitting that they reserved the seat No.4A and 4B by receiving Rs.500/- each from the complainants.  The complainants did not inform the check in staff or the boarding gate staff of the prereserved seats blocked by them. The assistant of the cabin crew was asked for after the announcement by the captain for the doors to be closed. Seat No.4A and 4B was allotted to another couple carrying an infant along with them.  The said seats has arrangement for “bassinet seat” for carriage of infant and therefore, the said seats were allotted to them. They offered for refund of Rs.1,000/- to the complainant after the correspondences. The complainants are demanding Rs.10,00,000/- from them against Rs.1,000/- paid.  The seats of 4A and 4B and 5A and 5B are one and the same and it has equal leg space.  The sitting in cramped position as mentioned by the treating doctor, it is used for sitting and the space occupied for the rear part of the body is one and the same in both seats. The leg space and width of the space are of different aspect and the change in the seat has not caused any inconvenience or cramp to the complainant. 

6.     Even when they sought for account number details for refund of Rs.1,000/- the complainant has not at all provided the said details.  The infants below 12 months and the mother have to be accommodated in the front seat from “bassinet provision”.  Had complainant No.2 wanted to travel in a better seat due to her better condition, she could have contacted the flight personnel. who could have ensured the passenger were taken care of by providing suitable assistance. The complainant did not do so.  Had the complainant No.2 suffered pain and agony in 90 minutes of journey, she would not have been in a position to walk after journey no assistance from the cabin crew or requirement for wheel chair was asked for. Hence it indicates that the complainant No.2 was able to walk and not suffering from any pain. In the legal notice received, there is no mention of prolonged medical treatment or physiotherapy to complainant No.2.  In the said legal notice, it is mentioned that she suffered pain and agony for 90 minutes and she come out of the acute pain.  It may be due to her tail bone problem and not due to the travelling in the second row in their flight. They are ready to pay Rs.1,000/- which the complainant’s have paid for reserving the seats. The legal notice issued earlier, the claim was only for Rs.1,00,000/- and in the 2^nd notice, they have claimed Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation which is obvious that they wanted to gain unlawfully and prayed the commission to dismiss the complaint. 

7.     In order to prove the case, Complainants and OPs have filed their affidavit evidence and produced documents. Arguments Heard. The following points arise for our consideration:-

1) Whether the complainants have proved deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties?

2) Whether the complainants are entitled to the relief prayed for in the complaint?

8.     Our answers to the above points are:-

POINT NO.1:            In the Affirmative

POINT NO.2:            Partly in the affirmative.

                                For the following.

REASONS

POINT No.1:-

9.     It is not in dispute that the complainants booked two tickets to go to Mumbai from Bangalore in the Aircraft being operated by Op.No.1 and also booked particular seat 4A and 4B by paying extra amount of Rs.500/- each for their convenience. It is an admitted fact that the complainants did not look into the seat number given to them at the time of issuing of boarding pass wherein the seat numbers are mentioned. If they had looked into it, and found the discrepancy. that could have been set right in the counter only.  Complainant did not observe the same probably hoping and believing and under the impression that having paid the extra amount to reserve the seats, the same has been allotted to them. Whereas unfortunately, for the complainants, the seats having numbered 5A and 5B were given to the complainants instead of 4A and 4B which has been clearly and unequivocally admitted by the Ops. The documents produced clearly amplifies the said fact. Even both parties have admitted the same. 

10.   Even OP.No.1 has offered to return Rs.1,000/- which they had received from the complainants as extra charges for reserving the said seats. It is the bounden duty of the OP No.1 to reserve the said seats for having taken the extra money from them and keep it reserved for them only. Passengers like Complainant No.1 and 2 who are ready to pay for the luxuries they wanted, and OP.No.1 has received extra amount to provide such service, which they did not do, which put the complainants into awkward position in the flight as they had to  request occupants of the seat and when they refused to do so, they have to face the ignonimity of others. Even according to the evidence produced the flight staffs did not come to the rescue of the complainants. It clearly shows that, there is deficiency in service and negligence on the part of OPs in allotting the seats reserved for the complainants to others and providing alternate seats to them.  Hence we answer POINT NO.1 IN THE AFFIRMATIVE.

POINT NO.2:

11.   OPs have produced the details of the preferred seats online booking, and also preferred seat selection scheme, refund of the amount.  Whatever may be the reason, OP.No.1 for not providing the seats reserved for the Complainant No.1 and 2, the complainants had to suffer for the inconvenience caused. In unequivocal terms the Complainants were offered Rs.1,000/- by the OPs to refund the same as they have received the said amount towards reserving the said seats which the complainants refused to receive. Though inconvenience caused to the complainants due to the negligent act of the OPs, complainants have not produced sufficient documents, medical records to show that due to travelling in the second row of the seat her problem of ‘tail bone’ aggravated and she could not walk properly and that she required rest and that they have spent more money for her treatment. Absolutely there is no evidence in that respect.  Further Ops have contended that, there is no difference between the 1^st row and 2^nd row of seat No.4A and 4B with 5A and 5B and the leg space seating space are all one and the same, and further it is specific case of Ops that if at all complainants No.2 had suffered due to her tail bone problem by travelling in 2^nd row in a cramped position, she would have sought for wheel chair assistance and instead she walked all the way on her own and there was no problem and she did not suffer any problem by travelling in the 2^nd row and the claim of the complainants seeking compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- is too exorbitant and contrary to the claim made in the first legal notice and with the 2^nd legal notice. 

12.   It is to be borne in mind that while granting  the compensation it should be borne in mind that it should not be bounty or given for asking and it should not be a fortune for the seeker. The compensation to be granted is to be just, reasonable and to compensate the sufferance of the persons.  Having in mind, the said principles, and in view of the non-production of sufficient and supporting evidence in respect of sufferance by complainants in particular, we are of the opinion that, OPs are to refund of Rs.1,000/- i.e seat reservation charges together with a compensation of Rs.10,000/- to each of the complainants towards causing mental agony + physical hardship.  OPs are also liable to pay Rs.5,000/- towards litigation expenses as the complainants filed this complaint before this commission and attended the commission on all the hearing dates, and pursued the complaint to establish their consumer rights. Hence, we answer POINT NO 2 PARTLY IN THE AFFIRMATIVE and pass the following:-

ORDER

1.  Complaint is allowed in part with cost.
2.  OP No.1 to 3 are jointly and severally hereby directed to pay sum of Rs.1,000/- i.e. amount paid by the complainants as seat reservation charges.
3. Further OPs are hereby directed to pay Rs.10,000/- towards damages to each of the complainant and Rs.5,000/- towards cost of litigation.
4.  The OPs are further directed comply the above order within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order and submit the compliance report to this Commission within 15 days thereafter.
5.  Send a copy of this order to both parties free of cost.

Note:You are hereby directed to take back the extra copies of the Complaints/version, documents and records filed by you within one month from the date of receipt of this order failing which the same will be destroyed as per the C.P. Act and Rules thereon.

(Dictated to the Stenographer over the computer, typed by him, corrected and then pronounced by us in the Open Forum on this day the 16^th day of February 2021)

MEMBER                                PRESIDENT

ANNEXURES

1. Witness examined on behalf of the Complainant/s by way of affidavit:

Copies of Documents produced on behalf of Complainant/s:

Ex P1 & P2: Copy of the Air Tickets

Ex. P3 & P4: Copy of the Receipts

Ex P5: Copy of the Letter issued by orthopedic surgeon.

Ex. P6: Copy of the Email correspondences

Ex P7: Copy of the Copy of the legal notice.

Ex P8: Copy of the Reply by OPs

Ex. P9: Copy of the Web site of air India giving details of infant of seats.

Ex P10: Copy of the previous complaint filed

Ex P11: Copy of the application filed withdraw the complaint.

Ex. P12: Copy of the order sheet in CCnO.2476/2017

Ex P13: Copy of the another legal notice dated 12.03.2018.

Ex P14: Copy of the Two postal acknowledgements.

Ex. P15: Copy of the reply given by the office.

Ex P16: Copy of the  web site details.

2. Witness examined on behalf of the Opposite party/s by way of affidavit:

RW-1: Sri Nakul Singh Chand, Station Manager of OP.  

Copies of Documents produced on behalf of Opposite Party/s

EX R1: Copy of the reply to the legal notice.

Ex R2: Copy of EMD Electronic Miscellaneous

Ex R3: Copy of the boarding card

Ex R4: Copy of the E-ticket

MEMBER                                PRESIDENT

RAK*