Kerala

StateCommission

A/15/587

STATION MANAGER AIR INDIA LTD - Complainant(s)

Versus

MUHAMMED KUNHI - Opp.Party(s)

JAGADISH KUMAR

29 Jul 2016

ORDER

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL

COMMISSION, VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

 

APPEAL NO.587/2015

JUDGMENT DATED 29/7/2016

  (Appeal filed against the order in C.C No.238/2012 dt. 30/4/2015 on the file of CDRF, Kasargod)

 

PRESENT:

SMT. A. RADHA                                       :         MEMBER

SHRI. K. CHANDRADAS NADAR           :        JUDICIAL MEMBER

APPELLANT:

            Air India Limited, Air India Building,

1^st  Floor, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021

– Rep: by its Station Manager Sri. S.B.S. Jacob,

Air India Buildings, Museum Road,

Thiruvananthapuram.

(By Adv:  R. Jagadish Kumar)                    

                        Vs

RESPONDENTS:

1.  Muhammed Kunhi, S/o. L.A. Khader,

 R/at K.C. House, Kaithakkad P.O.,

 Cheruvathoor, Hosdurg.

 

2. Akbar Travels of India Pvt. Ltd.,
3.  

TB Road Junction, Hosdurg.

 

 (By Adv:  K.C. Anil Kumar)       

JUDGMENT

SMT. A. RADHA  :  MEMBER

Appellant is the opposite party in C.C No.238/2012 on the file of CDRF, Kasargod who came up in appeal.

2.  It is the case of the complainant that he booked air ticket for      10/05/2012 through 1^st opposite party from Mumbai to Mangalore and       vice-versa.  The 1^st opposite party is the authorized agent of the               2^nd opposite party. When the complainant reached the domestic terminal        Airport in Bombay on 10/5/2012 to board the flight A1 679 to Mangalore after obtaining boarding pass and security check-up it was informed that the ticket of the complainant has been cancelled and allocated the seat to another person.  This resulted in off loading the complainant.  The complainant demanded the reason for off loading him from the flight but the 2^nd opposite party refused to do so.  The complainant was a bonafide passenger and without proper and valid reason the 2^nd opposite party arbitrarily refused the complainant to enter the flight.  The 2^nd opposite party’s Manager and ground staff mis-behaved towards the complainant. This act of the opposite parties amount to deficiency of service and mental agony to the complainant.  The complainant filed this complaint for direction to pay Rs.91,000/- as damages and also Rs.5,000/- as punitive damages and cost of Rs.3000/-.

          3.  In the written version filed by the 1^st opposite party it is admitted that 1^st opposite party booked the flight ticket to the complainant to travel on 10^th May 2012 by Air India and collected the cost of the travel ticket.  The 1^st opposite party has no knowledge with the allegation raised by the complainant regarding the deficiency of service on the part of 2^nd opposite party.

                4.  It is admitted in the version filed by the 1^st opposite party that the complainant reached the domestic terminal in Mumbai in order to board the flight to Mangalore.  The complainant was having a valid ticket for travelling on 10/5/2012 and on the date of journey it is the boundan duty to adhere the terms contained in the travel contract by the passenger.  It is contended that the District Forum lacks jurisdiction to entertain the complaint as there is no branches of the 2^nd opposite party at Kanjangad, Mangalore.  It is also contended that the complainant with another person booked air ticket to travel on 10/5/2012 from Bombay to Mangalore 11 hours.  The boarding commenced at 10.30 hours from Gate No.4 with prior commencement for boarding at A1 679 on public address system.  There had display of flight information installed at Gate No.4, in and around at the departure launch area.  The check in counters are strictly closed 45 minutes before departure of the flight.  The gate for all flights processed though aerobridge are closed 20 minutes before departure.  On the instant day the Flight       A1 679 the aerobridge bay No.A4 closed strictly 20 minutes before departure of the flight.  The complainant and 4 other passengers had not reported in time at the gate of A4 though repeated announcement on public address systems were made. The local officials of the  2^nd opposite party failed to locate the complainant and the co-traveller. It is also contended that the mobile numbers of the complainant never reflected in the PNR and the officials of the 2^nd opposite party failed to find out alternate mode of tracing was in vain.  Since the mandatory time procedure had to be followed at 10.52 hours the 2^nd opposite party had de-checked the complainant and those who had not reported in time and the gate closed in order to dispatch the flight on time.  There is no deficiency of service on the part of 2^nd opposite party.  The opposite party assisted the complainant to change their ticket from checked in one to open use.  The complainant himself delayed in reporting in time and it cannot be fastened upon the 2^nd opposite party as deficiency in service.

5.  The complainant was examined as PW1 and Exbts: were marked as A1 and A2, on the part of opposite party DW1 was examined and Exbts: B1 to B3 were marked.  The District Forum came to the conclusion that the off-loading after issuance of boarding pass is an insult which caused mental agony and found deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of 2^nd opposite party and allowed the complaint.

          6.  It is argued by the counsel for the appellant that the respondent booked ticket to travel from Mumbai to Mangalore by A1 679 on 10/5/2012.  It is admitted that the respondent took the boarding pass.  But at the same time he had not reported the gate subsequently.  Even after announcement made in PA system the respondent had not reported for boarding.  It is argued that the mobile numbers were not given in the PNR and the appellants were not in a position to locate the respondent.  As the flight had to be taken off in right time the appellant constrained to off-load the  respondent and could not travel in the flight.  After some time the respondent reached the gate by 11.00 am.  By that time the gate was closed as per the rules.  The 2^nd appellant extended the facility to get the ticket open even though it was checked in one to open use.  Hence the respondent had no monetary loss and he could avail open ticket at his convenience.  A passenger is expected to report at the gate within the prescribed time limit.  In the instant case, the respondent had not reported in time at the gate which resulted in the off loading of the respondent.  Hence no deficiency in service can be attributed upon the appellants.             No evidence is adduced by the respondent with regard to the allegation of the sale of air ticket to another passenger.  As per the records of the appellants in the said Flight, 7 seats were vacant in economy class and 25 seats in higher class.  So the allegation of the complainant that the ticket was sold to another person has no bonafides.

          7.  It is submitted by the counsel for the respondent that the             off-loading of the complainant caused mental agony and financial loss.    The respondent was already taken the boarding pass and produced as Exbt: A2.  As per the boarding pass the complainant reported the air port at 10.30 am.  Due to the denial of entry the respondent had to suffer mental agony and appellants adjusted the ticket for other passengers.                The off-loading of the passenger after issuing boarding pass is an insult and caused mental agony.  The respondent is a business man and he had incurred financial loss and it is to be compensated sufficiently.

          8.  Heard both sides and gone through the documents.  It is an undisputed fact that the complainant booked ticket in A1 679 Bombay to Mangalore on 10/5/2012 through the 2^nd respondent.  The specific case of the complainant is that he took the boarding pass at 10.30 am and before leaving the flight at 11 am the complainant was off-loaded on the ground that the respondent did not report the gate after obtaining the boarding pass.  Relying on the deposition of the respondent it is stated that the respondent reached the exit gate within 11 O’ clock.  He also stated that he has no knowledge of the contents of the ticket.  As per the terms a passenger has to report before 45 minutes of the departure of the Flight for the domestic flights.  Exbt: B3 produced by the appellant it is clearly stated that the checking counter closure time domestic flights 45 minutes before the departure.  The complainant has deposed that he reached within         11 O’ clock that does not mean before the closure of the aerobridge.  Normally the aerobridge will be closed before 20 minutes of the departure of the flight.  Though the appellant asserts that there had announcement in the PA system no evidence is available to that effect.  The allegation of the respondent that off-loading was done by the appellants to take additional passengers in the flight who had already booked, the seat capacity of the Flight was 20 + 152 totaling 172 and on 10/5/2012 seven passengers had not reported.  So the allegation of issuance of additional tickets does not stand.  There is no case for the complainant that the respondent had reported before the gate as vitiated in the flight details.  It is mandatory to  report before 45 minutes before the departure of the flight  time .  The gate for all flights processed through the aerobridge are closed 20 minutes before the departure of the flight.  The respondent  failed to prove that he reached before the gate No.4 sufficiently early.  Hence we find no deficiency in service on the part of appellants or off loading the complainant as he has not stipulated to the terms while issuing the flight tickets.  It is also clear from evidence that the checked in ticket was given as open ticket to the respondent.  Hence no financial loss caused to the respondent.  If at all any inconvenience caused to the respondent it is due to the               non-reporting in the stipulated time.

          In the result, appeal is allowed setting-aside the order passed by the Forum Below.

The office is directed to send a copy of this order to the Forum Below along with LCR.

                                                                        

 A. RADHA              :               MEMBER

 

                                               

K. CHANDRADAS NADAR  :  JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

Sa.

 

          

                                                  

 

 

                                                   KERALA STATE CONSUMER

       DISPUTES REDRESSAL

COMMISSION, SISUVIHAR LANE,

VAZHUTHACAUD   

                           THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

 

 

 

APPEAL NO.587/2015

JUDGMENT DATED 29/7/2016

 

 

                                                                                

 

 

Sa..