Delhi

New Delhi

CC/1736/2008

Monit Khera - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S. Air India Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

21 Aug 2015

ORDER

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-VI

(DISTT. NEW DELHI), ‘M’ BLOCK, 1^STFLOOR,

VIKAS BHAWAN, I.P.ESTATE,

NEW DELHI-110002.

 

Case No.CC/1736/08                                                                                                                                                                            Dated:

In the matter of:

SH. MOHIT KHERA

Q-473, SECTOR-21

JALVAYU VIHAR, NOIDA

                 ……..COMPLAINANT

 

VERSUS

 

1. THE MANAGING DIRECTOTOR,

AIR INDIA, 23, HIMALAYA HOUSE,

KASTURBA GANDHI MARG,

NEW DELHI-01

 

2. M/S. DYNAMIC TOURS & TRAVELS,

42, 2^ND FLOOR,

MUNICIPLA MARKET,

CONNAUGHT PLACE,

NEW DELHI

………. OPPOSITE PARTIES

 

 

 

 

 

 

ORDER

Member: Ritu Garodia

The short facts of alleged deficiency are that the complainant had booked a seat on flight from Mumbai to Frakfurt on 8.1.2007 to attend a business fair.  She was offloaded due to overbooking by OP-1 airlines.  OP-1 offered an alternate flight to Frankfurt via London which was not acceptable as complainant did not possess London Visa.  He was refunded the ticket amount after deduction of taxes.  OP-1 airlines staff did not help the complainant but behaved in a rude manner through out the whole deal.  Consequently, complaint was filed.

OP in its version has admitted that complainant offloaded as a standard practice in cases of overbooking.  OP also admits that alternate flight was via London which required transit visa.

The facts of case regarding offloading are admitted facts. Off loading are done by airlines for commercial gain.  Airlines are not concerned with the problems and harassment faced by ordinary passengers whose whole schedule goes haywire in spite of having confirmed tickets in hand.

Even after offloading,  OP admittedly provided an alternate flight which required on U K Visa.  A passenger not travelling to UK is not expected to have a visa for UK OP in an high handed manner provided an alternate flight which could not have been availed and thereafter absolved itself of all its accountability to passenger.  The ticket though was refunded but only after deduction of taxes.

The aggrieved passenger, unable to travel on scheduled date had to forgo his travel, miss the business fair, loose work, suffer callous attitude of OP-1 airlines staff.

We, therefore, find OP-1 guilty of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice by being insensitive towards needs of every day passenger for their own commercial profit.  We award Rs.50,000/- as compensation for harassment, mental agony and unfair trade practice and Rs.15,000/- litigation expenses to be paid by OP-1 airlines.

The order shall be complied with within 30 days of the receipt of the copy of the order; otherwise action can be taken under Section 25 / 27 of the Consumer Protection Act.

File be consigned to record room.

Copy of the order be sent to the parties free

of cost.

Pronounced in open Court on 21.08.2015.

 

(C.K.CHATURVEDI)

PRESIDENT

 

 

(RITU GARODIA)

MEMBER