BEFORE THE TELANGANA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION : HYDERABAD
FA NO. 253 OF 2015 AGAINST CC NO.334 OF 2012
ON THE FILE OF DISTRICT FORUM-III, HYDERABAD
Between:
1) The Manager (Reservations),
Air India Ltd., HACA Building,
Adarsh Nagar, Hyderabad.
2) Air India Ltd., Air India Building,
1st Floor, Nariman Point, Mumbai -400 021,
Rep. by its Chairman and Managing Director.
… Appellants/Opposite parties
And
Shaik Sybir Hussain S/o Shaik Abdul Shukur,
Aged 46 years, Occ: Private Service,
R/o SRT 884, Behind Police Station,
Sanathnagar, Near Nehru Park,
Sanathnagar, Hyderabad – 500 018.
… Respondent/Complainant
Counsel for the Appellants : Ms.V.Uma Devi
Counsel for the Respondent : Party-in-person
Coram :
Hon’ble Sri Justice B.N.Rao Nalla … President
&
Sri Patil Vithal Rao … Member
Wednesday, the Twenty Fourth day of August
Two thousand Sixteen
Oral Order : (per Hon’ble Sri Justice B.N.Rao Nalla, Hon’ble President)
***
1) This is an appeal filed under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act by Opposite parties, aggrieved by the orders dated 14.10.2015 made in CC No.334/2012 by the District Forum-III, Hyderabad directing the Opposite parties jointly and severally to refund the untilized portion of the tickets purchased by the Complainant for his travel to and fro from Hyderabad to Riyadh and Riyadh to Hyderabad; to pay compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for the hardship and inconvenience and costs of Rs.2,000/-, within a period of 30 days.
2) For the sake of convenience, the parties are described as arrayed in the execution application.
3) The case of the Complainant, in brief, is that he is working with a construction company at Hyderabad and posted at Saudi Arabia. Complainant booked to and fro journey to Saudi Arabia for himself and his family members by paying an amount of Rs.1,08,000/- to the OP No.1 on 17.04.2012. The onward journey was scheduled on 27.04.2012 and return journey on 10.06.2012. Complainant and his family reached Saudi Arabia safely on 27.04.2012 and he enquired with the Ops authorities as regards to his return journey who asked him to approach them on 09.06.2012. On his approach on 09.06.2012, the authorities informed that the flight was re-scheduled to 11.06.2012 on technical grounds. When he approached on 11.06.2012, the authorities informed the complainant that the flight was again rescheduled to 12.06.2012. And on 12.06.2012, the office of Ops itself was closed with no trace of employees, as such, he booked return tickets to Hyderabad on another airlines viz., Fly Dubai paying a sum of Rs.1,45,000/- on 12.06.2012.
4) Complainant and his family experienced hell at Riyadh for three days on account of deficient services rendered by the Ops. His friends helped him financially for coming back to Hyderabad. Complainant was provided concessional accommodation by his employer for his family stay during the period from 28.04.2012 to 09.06.2012 and due to negligence on the part of the Ops, he was forced to spend Rs.9,000/- on room rent for three days as accommodation was over; Rs.4,500/- for food and Rs.3,000/- for taxi charges added to it, the health of his mother-in-law became bad and he had to spend Rs.3,000/- for consultation of doctor and medicines. Some of the luggage was left behind as the new airliner did not permit since the baggage crossed the limit. He further incurred Rs.3,000/- towards food and other expenses.
5) Had the Ops informed in advance as to the ongoing strike of its employees, the Complainant would have taken steps to avoid all the problems and no financial loss would have occasioned to him. Complainant lost his salary for three days while his daughter lost the opportunity of attending school. This is purely due to the negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the Ops. Hence, prayed to direct the Ops to refund Rs.2,50,500/- spent by him together with interest @ 15% p.a. till the date of realization; to pay compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- towards mental agony; to award costs of Rs.10,000/-.
6) Opposite party No.1 filed counter admitting the booking of tickets for passengers by name Shaik Sybir Hussain, Sameera Begum, Shaik Hafsa Naazira, Shaik Husna Shaheen and Attar Shamsunnisa Begum to travel on Air India flight Nos.A1618 on 27.04.2012 from Hyderabad to Mumbai and A1921 on 28.04.2012 from Mumbai to Riyadh, A1920 on 10.06.2012 from Riyadh to Mumbai and A1615 on 11.06.2012 from Mumbai to Hyderabad accordingly ticket bearing Nos.098 2103 354 634/636/637/638 were issued by them at its booking office at Hyderabad. Due to commander strike from 10.05.2012 onwards, flights were cancelled from Riyadh and the passengers were informed on their local contact telephone numbers, their travel agents, through e-mails and also through local press in India.
7) Since the commanders were on strike, the management of Air India took steps with alternate options as provided to the cancelled flight passengers as per the guidelines of the Company which were:
a) Rebooking to first operating available flight on Air India without any penalty/rebooking charges;
b) Interline transfer to any other full service Airline without any additional charges, provided seats are available on other Airlines
c) full refund of the ticket without any refund administrative charges from the point of sale.
Riyadh office was open on all days from Saturday and Thursday from 0830 hours to 1300 hours and again from 1600 hours to 1930 hours. Saudi Arabia is a country where air-carriers would be taken to task by the Director General of Civil Aviation and the managers would be asked what alternative arrangements were being made to accommodate cancelled flight passengers. Unless the arrangements are made by the carriers, they would not be allowed by DGCA to go out of their office till they are satisfied with the arrangements made by the carriers to accommodate all the cancelled flight passengers. Complainant, on his own, made alternate arrangements, for which the Ops are not liable. The strike could not be anticipated in advance as no notice was given and it was started all of sudden. The complainant filed the present complaint without exhausting other avenues available to them.
8) In fact, the Ops have not received any complaint from any passenger of cancelled flight or any passenger filed a case against Air India shows that all arrangements have been made by the Ops and provided service to the passengers to their satisfaction during the crisis period. There is no deficiency of service on its part. The flights were cancelled due to unavoidable circumstances. As per the contract of services and terms and conditions, the Ops would refund the amount on the unutilized portion of the tickets of passengers without refund administration fee, in pursuance of Article 10.2.1, 10.2.2 and 10.2.3 of General conditions of Carriage for passengers and baggage. Hence, prayed to dismiss the complaint.
9) The District Forum after considering the material available on record, allowed the complaint as stated, in the paragraph No.1, supra.
10) Aggrieved by the said order, the Appellants/Opposite parties preferred this appeal on the premise that ex-facie the order passed is illegal and against the facts on record. The Respondent did not avail the alternative arrangements provided by the Appellants and instead, made alternative arrangements on his own without contacting or informing the appellants and that the Respondent is not entitled for compensation but entitled only unutilized portion of the tickets amount as on that date, as per the rules and regulations of the Baggage. Hence, prayed to set aside the orders of the forum below.
11) The point that arises for consideration is whether the impugned order as passed by the District Forum suffers from any error or irregularity or whether it is liable to be set aside, modified or interfered with, in any manner? To what relief ?
12) It is an admitted fact that the Respondent booked to and fro tickets for himself and his family members to go to Riyadh of Saudi Arabia and performed the onward journey on 27.04.2012 and could not be able to perform the journey on 09.06.2012 on account of non-providing the flight by the Opposite parties and compelled by the inaction on the part of the Appellants, he performed journey by another airline on 12.06.2012.
13) It is argued by the counsel for Appellants that instead of granting refund of down journey, the forum below granted both up and down journeys, which is ex-facie illegal on the face of record. It has already come on record that on account of delay on the part of the Appellants in making alternate arrangements, the Respondent was forced to perform his return journey by another airline viz., Fly Dubai. It is quite but natural that when a scheduled programme is not carried on time, it would cause inconvenience and hardship to any passenger. In the instant case too, the Respondent sustained inconvenience and hardship which is rightly addressed by the forum below.
14) In crystal clear terms, the Respondent admitted in his complaint that he performed journey from Hyderabad to Saudi Arabia on 27.04.2012 without any complaint. On a perusal of the orders of the forum below, in the result portion, it is observed as below:
“The Opposite party No.1 and 2 shall jointly and severally refund the un-utilized portion of the tickets purchased by the Complainant for his travel to and fro from Hyderabad to Riyadh and Riyadh to Hyderabad.”
We do not see any error or infirmity in this order. Taking into consideration the inconvenience and hardship experienced by the Respondent, the forum below awarded a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- which would suffice everything.
15) In the above facts and circumstances, we do not see any reason to interfere with the well-considered orders passed by the District Forum and the point framed for consideration in paragraph No.11, supra, is answered accordingly.
16) In the result, the appeal is dismissed but in the circumstances, parties to bear their own costs. Time for compliance : four weeks.
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Dt. 24.08.2016
JBNRN (P) & PVR (M)
