Order No.  10  dt.  08/07/2019

             The case of the complainant in brief is that the complainant booked three air tickets for journey from Delhi to Kolkata in Flight No. AI764 on 16/01/2018 at 5 P.M. for three persons namely Sri Pradeep Dadlani, the complainant, Smt. Parinidhi Dadlani, wife of the complainant and Mukta Dadlani his daughter and paid Rs.7742/- as cost of tickets. On 16/01/2018 complainant along with his wife and daughter, however, arrived at the air port entry gate of Delhi at 4 PM approximately for getting boarding passes and for depositing the luggage with them. But the air lines authority did not allow him to get the flight by issuing boarding pass in his favour. However, his daughter and wife were allowed in the said flight against which the complainant booked tickets though they were at first told that their tickets had been cancelled. After considering the situation about the urgency of getting the flight by his daughter and the physical disability of the complainant himself due to meningitis during his childhood as pointed out by the complainant, the airport authority changed their stance of cancellation of all the tickets and allowed Smt. Parinidhi Dadlani and her daughter to avail the schedule flight at 5 PM by issuing boarding passes . Complainant had no other option than to see off his wife and daughter. Against this uneven treatment of the air lines management complainant wrote a letter seeking remedy thereof on 05/10/2018. But the airlines authority remained silent against the attempt of the complainant.   Finding no other alternative the complainant lodged this complaint praying  direction upon the o.p. seeking refund of Rs.2866/- for the cost of the ticket and Rs.4,50,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony.

            PR & TR shows that notice had been served upon the o.p. on 16/04/2019. In spite of the receiving the notice o.p. did not attend the proceedings of the case. Hence, the case had been fixed ex parte against the o.p.

            In order to prove the case complainant sworn an affidavit of evidence and in support of his contention and filed documents in support of his claim. Due to unchallenged testimonial of the complainant there is a little scope to disbelieve the submission of the complainant and, therefore, it may be accepted and necessary order is to be passed accordingly.

            Considering the submission of the complainant and on perusal of the documents on record it is evident that complainant had booked tickets for journey on 16/01/2018 from Delhi to Kolkata by Flight No. AI-764 which was scheduled to depart from Delhi to Kolkata at 5 PM. It is also evident from record that the tickets of the complainant and his wife Smt Parinidhi Dadlani were purchased on 25/07/2017 at a time by the same booking ID No. EMT 22456121 and such booking was confirmed vide two consecutive PNRs in Flight No. AI764 to be departed from Delhi airport on 16/01/2018 at 5 PM. It is known to all that the passengers must arrive at the entry gate two hours before the departure. In the complaint petition complainant stated that they arrived at the entry gate at 4 PM i.e. one hour late from the schedule time of arrival at the entry gate. For such a situation the Air India authority at the Delhi air port refused to issue boarding pass in favour of the complainant and cancelled the ticket of the complainant. However, his daughter and wife were allowed to travel in the scheduled flight by issuing boarding passes. Regarding issuing of boarding passes in favour of Smt. Parinidhi Dadlani and Mukta Dadlani we did not require to look into the matter. However, it is to be noted that the complainant had confirmed tickets alongwith tickets of his wife and they arrived at the entry gate at the same time at 4 P.M.when his wife only was  allowed to board the flight. Therefore, it is evident that Air India authority at the Delhi air port on 16/01/2018 at 4 PM took different approaches in treating passengers of same cause.

            In favour of demanding compensation complainant had not justified his claim of Rs.4,50,000/-. Complainant had not mentioned the actual damage suffered by him. The amount of compensation must commensurate to the actual damage suffered by the claimant which is to be established by evidences. Complainant had not furnished any such documents in favour of his claim towards compensation.

            On the basis of the said evidences on record and since no challenge has been made by o.p. to controvert the demand of the complainant we have no other alternative but to accept the case of the complainant.

            With the above points in view, we hold that there was deficiency in service on the part of the o.p. and complainant is, therefore, allowed to get remedy for the injury caused by the o.p.

            Hence, it is ordered

            That the Case No. 3/2019 is allowed ex parte with cost against the o.p. The o.p. is directed to refund of Rs.2866/- (Rupees Two Thousand Eight Hundred and Sixty Six) only as the cost of the ticket with compensation of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand) only for harassment and mental agony and litigation cost of Rs.500/- (Rupees Five Hundred) only withhin 30 days from the date of communication of this order, i.d. an interest @ 8% p.a. shall accrue over the entire sum due to the credit of the complainant till full realization.