Kerala

StateCommission

A/13/468

AIR INDIA LTD - Complainant(s)

Versus

RAFFI MATHAR - Opp.Party(s)

M/S MENON AND PAI

03 Nov 2017

ORDER

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION SISUVIHARLANE VAZHUTHACADU THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

 

APPEAL NO.468/13

JUDGMENT DATED : 03.11.2017

 

(Appeal filed against the order in CC.No.373/11 on the file of CDRF, Ernakulam order dated : 30.01.2013)

PRESENT

 

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI.S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN        : PRESIDENT

 

SRI.V.V.JOSE                                                          : MEMBER

 

APPELLANTS

 

1.Air India Ltd, Rep.by its

Chairman – Managing Director,

Air India House,

Mumbai – 400 021

 

2. The Senior Manager,

Sales & Marketing,

Air India, Collis Estate,

M.G.Road, Ernakulam,

Cochin – 682 016

 

(By Adv.M/s.Menon & Pai)

 

Vs

OPPOSITE PARTY

 

            Raffi Mather,

            S/o.K.M.Mather,

            Permanently residing at 14-A,

            Ivory Heights,

            Panampilly Nagar,

            Cochin – 682 016

 

 

 

JUDGMENT

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI.S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN        : PRESIDENT

                  Opposite parties in CC.No.373/11 of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ernakulam have filed this appeal challenging the Order directing them to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation, Rs.7200/- with interest at 12% per annum towards  loss of luggage and also to provide an air ticket to complainant at his option.

                 2.    Respondent / complainant booked a ticket from Delhi to Kochi via Mumbai in the flight operated by first opposite party. At Delhi Airport he was issued two boarding passes, one up to Mumbai and the other from Mumbai to Kochi. Getting down at Mumbai he confirmed the ticket to Kochi and occupied a seat in the flight. He was asked to disembark and officials of first opposite party forcefully sent him out of the aircraft. After much delay he was provided a seat in another flight to Kochi. His luggage booked from Delhi to Kochi was also lost in the transit. After issuing an advocate notice complainant filed the complaint claiming compensation of Rs.11,53,000/- from the respondents.

                        3. Opposite parties filed version that complainant did not present the manually generated boarding pass issued at Delhi Airport at Mumbai Airport to get a system generated boarding card. Without proper verification of his boarding pass he was allowed to get in the flight for Kochi and he occupied a seat. He had to be uploaded from the flight as he was declared as a ‘no show passenger’ by the system. Later, a ticket was issued to him to board the next flight to Kochi. His luggage was lost in the transit and he is entitled to get only Rs.7,200/- based on its weight. Opposite parties offered to compensate the complainant with a return ticket to anywhere in its network within India. Not accepting the offer complaint was filed claiming excessive compensation, according to the opposite parties.

                 4. Evidence consisted of testimony of complainant as PW1 and Exts. A1 to A19 on his side. For the opposite parties one witness was examined as DW1.

                 5. Appreciating the materials produced and hearing the counsel on both sides the forum below upholding the case of complainant allowed his complaint granting the following reliefs.

1. The opposite parties shall jointly and severally pay compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- towards the complainant.
2. The opposite parties shall jointly and severally also pay Rs.7,000/- to the complainant with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of journey till realization towards loss of luggage.
3. The opposite parties shall jointly and severally provide ticket to the complainant as offered by the opposite party at the option of complainant.

                  Aggrieved by the Order the opposite parties have filed this appeal.

                 6.    Notice of appeal served on respondent a representation was made that he was appearing through a counsel, but later none appeared and no vakalath was filed.

                 7.    We heard the counsel for appellants and perused the records.

                 8. Learned counsel for appellant in his submissions confined his challenges to assail the direction issued over granting of compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- and providing of air ticket to complainant at his option. So far as the direction issued to pay a sum of Rs.7,200/- with interest as a compensation for loss of luggage no challenge was raised by the counsel. Compensation of Rs.one lakh ordered is highly excessive and the order directing for providing air ticket to the complainant at his option is not sustainable, according to the counsel. An offer was made earlier to provide ticket to avoid a complaint and its prosecution. It was not accepted by complainant and, based on such offer the forum below could not have directed to provide air ticket for a journey at his option over and above awarding of compensation is the submission of counsel. Complainant did not obtain a system generated boarding pass and without noticing it by mistake of the offer in the checking counter he gained entry in the flight to Kochi and service the system showed him as a ‘no show passenger ‘’ he was disembarked but later provided a seat in the next flight to Kochi.  According to counsel complainant was equally culpable for the inconvenience and delay caused to him and he cannot claim compensation from opposite parties.

                 9. Claim of the complaint is based on the inconvenience and difficulties caused to him during his journey from Delhi to Kochi via Mumbai through a flight of the first opposite party. He was issued two boarding passes one from Delhi to Mumbai and another from Mumbai to Kochi, both of which were manually generated. With the boarding pass issued for journey from Mumbai to Kochi he got in the flight and occupied a seat. Since the system showed him as a ‘no show passenger’ as he had not obtained a system generated pass on the boarding pass collected from Delhi he was disembarked from the flight and later his onward journey in next flight to Kochi was arranged providing him a ticket, according to the opposite party. Even assuming that a system generated pass showing the boarding pass collected from Delhi was required to continue his travel to Kochi he could not have gained entry in the flight unless there was culpable latches and negligence on the part of the officials of Air India in examining his boarding pass. Why should he require a system generated boarding pass when a boarding pass already issued from Delhi for his onward journey to Kochi from Mumbai, has not been explained by the opposite parties. We can understand that boarding pass issued at Delhi required to be shown at checking counter. He could not have gained entry in the flight unless his boarding pass was confirmed at Mumbai checking counter.  When boarding pass was issued at Delhi the passenger was not informed that he had to obtain a system generated computerized boarding pass at Mumbai is practically conceded by OPW1 who was examined on behalf of the opposite parties. So the latches and negligence on the part of the opposite parties in causing inconvenience and difficulties to the complainant passenger in his travel from Delhi to Kochi is established in the case. It has come out that the opposite parties arranged a seat to the complainant in the next flight to Kochi on the same day. Complainant is no doubt is entitled to compensation for the inconvenience and hardships caused to him by the negligence and fault of opposite parties. But the quantum of such compensation cannot be excessive. Delay caused to his onward journey and also the hardships suffered by the complainant being considered we are of the view that the opposite parties have to pay him compensation of Rs.25,000/-,  Sum of Rs.1,00,000/- granted by the forum is highly excessive and it is reduced to Rs.25,000/-. The direction issued by the district forum to provide the complainant a ticket at his option over and above awarding compensation is totally in correct. There was an offer previously from the opposite parties to provide him a ticket is then network anywhere in India at his option for settling the disputes. That offer was not accepted. Over and above compensation complainant cannot set up any claim on the offer previously made by the opposite party. Direction of the forum to provide a ticket to the complainant at his option is liable to be set aside.

                 In the result, the appeal is partly allowed reducing the compensation payable to the complainant to Rs.25,000/- (Rupess. Twenty five thousand) and setting aside the direction issued to provide him a ticket at his option. The order of the forum directing the opposite parties to pay Rs.7,200/- to the complainant with interest at 12% per annum from the date of journey till realization, for loss of his luggage, is affirmed.

                 Sum of Rs.25,000/- deposited by appellants for entertaining the appeal shall be released to the complainant on the application and it shall be adjusted in the sums payable by the opposite parties.

                 Appeal is partly allowed as indicated directing both sides to suffer their costs.

 

                       JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN       : PRESIDENT

 

 

                                                V.V.JOSE                 : MEMBER

 

 

 

 

 

Be/

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

KERALA STATE

 CONSUMER DISPUTES

 REDRESSAL COMMISSION

SISUVIHARLANE

VAZHUTHACADU

 THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

 

APPEAL NO.468/13

JUDGMENT DATED : 03.11.2017