Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/78/2016

Ashok Gupta - Complainant(s)

Versus

The General Manager-cum-Chief Officer, Air India - Opp.Party(s)

Gobind Sharma Adv. & Amrita Verma Adv.

22 Aug 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH

======

Consumer Complaint  No	:	78 of 2016
Date  of  Institution	:	2.2.2016
Date   of   Decision	:	22.8.2016

 

 

 

 

 

Ashok Gupta S/o Hans Raj Gupta R/o H.No.715-B, Sector 36-B, Chandigarh.

                …..Complainant

Versus

 

1.     The General Manager-cum-Chief Officer, Air India, SCO 162-164, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh.
2.     The General Manager-cum-Chief Officer, Spicejet Ltd., 319, Udyog Vihar, Phase IV, Gurgaon (Haryana-122016).

….. Opposite Parties

 

BEFORE:  SH.RAJAN DEWAN                 PRESIDENT

         MRS.PRITI MALHOTRA             MEMBER

 

 

For complainant(s)      :     Sh. Gobind Sharma, Adv.

 

For OP No.1             :     Sh. S.R. Chaudhuri, Adv.

 

For OP No.2             :     Sh. Saurabh Sharma, Adv.  

 

 

PER PRITI MALHOTRA, MEMBER

 

 

         As per the case, the complainant was to travel from Chandigarh to Nagpur on an official tour for which he booked tickets of two different airlines as per schedule given in para 3 of the complaint.  According to the complainant he travelled Chandigarh to Nagpur as per plans and attended the workshop on 24.8.2015. However while returning on 25.8.2015 the complainant boarded the Air India Flight AL 469 at Nagpur in the morning and the flight reached at New Delhi Air Port T-3 at 12.05 which was scheduled to land at 10.45; as such the flight was 80 minutes late and it took 35 minutes to reach the luggage at Belt. It is pleaded that under the immense pressure being late the complainant caught a taxi CAB No. DL1Ry 4588 which took the complainant to D-1 from where the spice jet flight to Chandigarh be boarded. Somehow the complainant reached at the counter of Spice jet at D-1 Airport New Delhi but the person at the spice jet counter told that the boarding had already been closed and the complainant had missed his flight due to late reporting. The attendant remarked on the ticket that the Pax reported at 12.50.  The complainant requested the official of spice jet again and again to issue boarding pass as 20 minutes were still left for departure time but to no gain. Ultimately when the requests of the complainant were not accepted he was left with no other alternative but to travel through a Volvo bus to Chandigarh, which caused a lot of mental agony and physical harassment to the complainant. Alleging the said act of OPs as deficiency in service, this compliant has been filed.

 

2. The OP No.1 in its reply while admitting the factual matrix of the case stated that the delay in arrival of the flight in Delhi was beyond the control of the answering OP as  the said flight arrived at Raipur at 08:59hrs. However the flight plan handed over by the captain was disallowed by the Air Traffic Controller (ATC). The ATC asked for a revised route plan. But the clearance for the fresh/revised route plan was obtained after contacting CCU/FIC Dispatch Delhi at 09:27 Hrs. and handed over to the commander of the flight. This revised route plan needed additional 1.5 tons of fuel. The fueling was over by 09:47 hrs. Doors closed at 09:51 hrs. and the plane took off at 09:55 hrs and the said AL flight reached New Delhi Airport at 12:05.  As such the flight in question had started from Nagpur on time and it was only at Raipur that it had to perforce re-route its flight path on the directions of the ATC, which was beyond the control of the answering OP and therefore, there is no deficiency on its part.
3.      OP No.2 in its reply stated that the schedule time of the flight was 13.10 Hrs. on 25.8.2015 and the flight actually took off at the said scheduled time i.e. 13:10 Hrs. The staff of the answering respondent who was present on Airport, issued last boarding pass at 12:32 Hrs. to Navneet Singh.  However, till the time the complainant did not report at the counter. It is further averred that repeated requests through announcements were made by the staff of the answering respondent by pronouncing the name of the complainant to get the boarding pass and security check and board the flight. It is averred that even after issuing the last boarding pass and making several announcements, the complainants were declared ‘No Show’ for the said flight at 12:40 hours. In case of a ‘No Show’ the name of the passenger is repeatedly announced inside the Airport premises and the staff of the concerned airline also individually enquires about the said passenger from other passengers. The complainant reached at boarding counter at 12:50 hours i.e. when 20 minutes were left for flight to take off. It is submitted that by that time, the doors of the flight had been closed and as such it was not possible by any stretch of imagination to allow the complainant to board the flight. It is further averred that the complainant himself admitted that he reached late at the boarding counter due to late reaching of Air India flight and as such he became late. Therefore,  liability if any, is of OP No.1 and not of OP No.2. Denying all other  allegations levelled in the complaint a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.
4.     The Complainant also filed rejoinders thereby reiterating the averments as made in complaint and controverting that of the Opposite Party No.1&2 made in their respective replies.
5.     Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.
6.     We have heard the ld.Counsel for the parties and have also perused the record.
7.     The present complaint filed by the complainant is admitted to the extent that the complainant booked tickets from the OPs for his journey in question. It is also admitted that the return flight of OP No.1 scheduled from Nagpur to Delhi got delayed by 80 minutes from its scheduled time i.e. 10:45  minutes whereas it reached a New Delhi  airport at 12.05 minutes. This factum is also not denied by the OP No.1 that it took 35 minutes to reach the luggage at belt.  Due to the above delay the complainant could not take the, the connecting spice jet flight from New Delhi to Chandigarh & missed the same. It is grouse of the complainant that despite strenuous efforts he was not issued boarding pass by OP No.2 as 20 minutes were still left for departure time and the attendant of the OP No.2 remarked on the ticket that   pax reported at 12.50. The complainant has alleged that due to the delay caused by the OP No.1’s flight the complainant missed his connecting flight for which he has to face harassment and humiliation and financial burden as he had travelled through  Volvo bus to reach his destination i.e. Chandigarh.
8.     OP No.1  through counsel explained in its defence that the flight in question was delayed for 80 minutes for the reasons beyond the control of OP No.1 submitted that the flight departed from Nagpur at 0800 hrs and arrived at Raipur at 08:59hrs. However the flight plan  handed over by the captain was disallowed by the Air Traffic Controller (ATC). The ATC asked for a revised route plan. But the clearance for the fresh/revised route plan was obtained after contacting CCU/FIC Dispatch Delhi at 09:27 Hrs. and handed over to the commander of the flight. This revised route plan needed additional 1.5 tons of fuel. The fueling was over by 09:47 hrs. Doors closed at 09:51 hrs. and the plane took off at 09:55 hrs and the said AL flight reached New Delhi Airport at 12:05. Further claimed that the carrier undertakes to use its best efforts to carry the pax and his/her baggage with reasonable dispatch and to adhere to published schedules in effect on the date of travel.  
9.     The above said explanation given by OP No.1 to justify the delay of 80 minutes is not acceptable as there is no cogent evidence on record wherefrom it can be gathered that the flight plan handed over by the captain was disallowed by the Air Traffic Controller  and was asked for revised route plan. There is no iota of evidence in the shape of correspondence exchanged for the revised route plan as alleged to be instructed by the Air Traffic controller. Since record reveals that the above said explanation for the 80 minutes delay is part of an email (Annexure R2 at page 42) sent by OP No.1 in response to the legal notice of the complainant, it seems as concocted one in the absence of any document in this regards.  The above said explanation for the 80 minutes delay has been given by OP No.1 without any documentary proof and as such the same stands rejected. This observation of our conclude  that due to the arbitrariness of OP No.1 the flight reached Delhi beyond its scheduled time owing to which the complainant  missed his connecting flight, which caused him a lot of humiliation, inconvenience and mental agony apart from financial burden. Thus, it is a clear cut deficiency on the part of OP No.1.

     As far as the role of OP No.2 is  concerned the complainant himself admitted in his complainant that he reached the airport 80 minutes late owing to which his connecting flight was missed. Undisputedly complainant reported at the counter 20 minutes prior to take off time of the flight and by that time the doors of the flight were closed and as such it was not possible to allow the complainant to board the flight. In our view no case of deficiency in service against OP No.2 is made out and thus complaint against OP No.2 is dismissed.  From the record it is clear that due to delay caused by OP No.1 the complainant could not reach the airport well in time in order to board his connecting flight.

10.     Since the complainant had to suffer a lot  due to deficient act of OP No.1 it would be befitting if we burden it to pay 20,000/- as compensation to the complainant for causing financial loss and mental harassment except cost of litigation.
11.     In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that for the deficiency in service on the part of OP No.1 complaint deserves to be allowed.  Accordingly, the complaint is allowed against OP No.1 and it is directed as under:-

        

a]  To pay Rs.20,000/- as compensation for causing financial loss and mental agony and physical harassment to the complainant.

b]  To pay Rs.7,000/- towards litigation expenses.

 

         The above said order shall be complied with by the Opposite Party No.1 within 30 days of its receipt, failing which it shall be liable to pay interest on the above awarded amount at (a) at the rate of 18% p.a. from the date of this order till it is paid, besides paying litigation expenses.

         The certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of charge, after which the file be consigned.

Announced

22.8.2016

                                                                                       Sd/-

 (RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

(PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER