Tripura

West Tripura

CC/14/86

Sri Pankaj Banik - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Station manager Air India And Other. - Opp.Party(s)

Mr. A. Sengupta

03 Jul 2015

ORDER

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSSAL FORUM

WEST TRIPURA : AGARTALA

 

 

CASE NO: CC- 86 of 2014

 

 

Sri Dr. Pankaj Banik

S/O- Sri Hari Narayan Banik,

Old Municipality Road, Agartala,

West Tripura. .........Complainant.

 

 

______VERSUS______

 

 

1. Air India Ltd.

West Tripura,

(Represented by its Station Manager).

1. Agartala Airport,

 

 

2. Swastik Airways,

Madhya Banamalipur,

Agartala-799001,

West Tripura. ..…..Opposite Parties.

 

 

__________PRESENT__________

 

 

SRI S. C. SAHA

PRESIDENT,

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA.

 

 

SMT. B. BHATTACHARYA,

MEMBER,

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA.

 

 

SHR. B. BHATTACHARYA,

MEMBER,

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA.

 

 

C O U N S E L

 

 

For the Complainant : Mr. Abhijhit Sengupta,

Advocate.

 

For the Opposite Parties : Mr. Pradip Chakraborty,

Advocate.

 

JUDGMENT DELIVERED ON : - 03.07.15

 

 

 

J U D G M E N T

 

This is a complaint U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (herein after referred to as 'the Act') filed by the complainant, Dr. Pankaj Banik of Old Municipality Road, Agartala, West Tripura against the O.Ps, namely Air India Ltd. and another over a consumer dispute alleging negligence and deficiency in rendering service on the part of the O.Ps.

 

2. The fact of the case as gathered from the record is that the complainant booked two E-tickets on 1^st July, 2014 through the local travel agent(O.P. No.2) for travelling from Chennai to Kolkata on 02.07.14 and Kolkata to Agartala on 03.07.14 by Air India Ltd. flight no- AI 766 and flight no- AI 743 respectively. On his arrival at the checked-in counter of Chennai Airport at 1540 hours on 02.07.14 he was told by the ground staff that they were unable to accommodate him to the flight as the flight was full. For that reason, he had to postpone the journey and stayed in a hotel. He returned to Kolkata on the next day by purchasing a fresh ticket. As he could not avail himself of the Chennai – Kolkata bound Air India Ltd. flight on 02.07.14, he had to cancel the ticket of flight no- AI 743 for his scheduled journey from Kolkata to Agartala on 03.07.14. It is alleged that inspite of his consistent demands the O.P.-Airlines did not refund the air fare of the said flight which, according to him, constituted deficiency in service on the part of the O.P.-Airlines.

 

3. The complaint was contested by the O.P. Air India Ltd., stating, interalia, that the complainant did not report to the checked-in counter of Chennai Airport within the specified time for which he was declared as 'No-show'. It is denied that the flight no- AI 766 operated from Chennai to Kolkata on 02.07.14 was full. The flight was closed with 97 passengers against its boarding capacity of 122 passengers and the last passenger was accepted by the checked-in counter of Chennai Airport at 1566 hours.

 

4. In support of the case, the complainant has examined himself as P.W. 1 and has proved and exhibited the following documents:-

4. Exhibit 1 Series : 2 E-tickets,

   Exhibit 2: Advocate's Notice dated 13.08.14,

   Exhibit 3: Reply to the Advocate's Notice dated 11.09.14.

    

   5. On the other hand, one Sri Donald Mendez, the Manager, Customer Service of Air India Ltd. Airlines House, Kolkata has examined himself as O.P.W.1 as a witness of the O.P. Airlines and has proved and exhibited the copy of E-mail dated 18.05.15 as Exhibit A.

 

FINDINGS:

 

6. The points that would arise for consideration in this proceeding are;

(i) Whether the complainant failed to avail himself of Chennai - Kolkata bound Air India Ltd. Flight no- AI 766 on 02.07.14 due to the negligence of the O.P. airlines;

6. (ii) Whether the O.P.-Airlines was deficient in rendering service to the complainant. If so, whether the complainant is liable to be compensated by the O.P. Airlines.

    

   7. We have already heard arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the parties. Also perused the pleadings, documents on record and the evidence adduced by the parties meticulously.

    

8. Now, let us examine whether the complainant had failed to get the Air India Ltd. flight No- AI 766 for his journey from Chennai to Kolkata due to deficiency in service on the part of the O.P.-Airlines.

 

9. The complainant in his pleading, as well as in the examination-in-chief by way of affidavit stated that he reached the Air India Ltd. checked-in-counter of Chennai Airport at 1540 hours but his reporting was not accepted by the ground staff of the O.P.-Airlines on the plea that the flight was full. The complainant has failed to prove by credible evidence that he reached the checked-in counter at 1540 hours. He could have urged the Forum to issue direction to the O.P.-Airlines to arrange for production of the CC TV footage of Chennai Airport dated 02.07.14 to substantiate his plea regarding his arrival at the checked-in counter at 1540 hours. On the contrary, the aforesaid contention of the complainant has been belied by the E-mail dated 18.05.15(Exhibit-A) issued by the Manager(C), Chennai Airport where from it reveals that the flight no- AI 766 left for Kolkata on 02.07.14 with 97 passengers and the last passenger was accepted at 1556 hours. This fact has also been narrated by the O.P.-Airlines in paragraph 3 of their written version. The complainant in his evidence has not denied the said averment of the O.P.-Airlines. From Exhibit A it is clear that the flight in question was left for Kolkata on 02.07.14 with 97 passengers against capacity of 122 passengers. It also appears from Exhibit-A that the last passenger was accepted by the checked-in counter at 1556 hours. We find no justifiable ground to doubt the veracity of the contents of Exhibit A. If the last passenger was accepted by the O.P.-Airlines against flight no-AI 766 at 1556 hours as evident from Exhibit-A, there was certainly no reason for not allowing the complainant to get the flight on his arriving at the checked-in counter at 1540 hours when the flight was far beyond the full capacity. We do not agree with the complainant that he reached the Air India Ltd. checked-in counter of Chennai Airport at 1540 hours. In our considered opinion, the complainant appeared at the checked-in counter of Chennai Airport certainly after 1556 hours when the last passenger was accepted by the checked-in counter. We think that the complainant missed the flight for his own fault not for the negligence or deficiency of the O.P.-Airlines.

 

10. Admittedly, the complainant cancelled the ticket for his journey form Kolkata to Agartala by flight no- AI 743 on 03.07.14 at 1648 hours vide PNR no- YDH2E as he could not avail himself of the Chennai – Kolkata bound flight on 02.07.14. The O.P.W.1, Donald Mendez, Station Manager of Air India Ltd., during his cross examination clearly stated that they did not refund the price of the cancelled ticket as the complainant made no application for the same. He also went on saying that they are ready to refund the price of the cancelled ticket as per rule. There is no denial of the fact that the complainant served an Advocate's Notice (Exhibit-2) upon the O.P.-Airlines claiming refund of the price of the cancelled ticket along with other reliefs including compensation and the O.P.-Airlines also responded to the said notice by a letter dated 11.09.14 (Exhibit-3). Admittedly, the complainant did not make formal application to the O.P.-Airlines to get the price of the cancelled ticket. In our view, the O.P.-Airlines could have refunded the price of the cancelled ticket on the basis of the Advocate's Notice (Exhibit-2) issued by the complainant. The purpose of Advocate's Notice is to afford an opportunity to the O.P. to redress the grievances of the aggrieved party. It is not understandable to us as to why the O.P.-Airlines did not address the legitimate demand of the complainant with regard to refund of price of the cancelled ticket, basing on the said demand notice.

 

11. In view of the discussion made above, we are of the view that the complainant has failed to prove by cogent and clear evidence that the O.P. Air India Ltd. was deficient in rendering service to the complainant. Since the O.P.-Airlines is ready to refund the price of the ticket that was cancelled by the complainant vide PNR No-. YDH2E we propose to make the following order.

 

12. In the result, therefore, the complaint U/S 12 of the Act filed by the complainant is allowed partly on contest. The O.P. Air India Ltd. is directed to refund the price of the ticket cancelled by the complainant vide PNR No. YDH2 as admissible as per rule treating the demand notice dated 13.08.14 as an application for refund of money against the cancelled ticket. Considering the facts and surrounding circumstances of the case, we do not consider it a fit case to award any compensation in favour of the complainant as he did not appear to have suffered any mental anxiety and harassment. However, we direct the O.P- Airlines to pay Rs.3000/- to the complainant as costs of litigation. The O.P. Airlines is to make payment of the aforesaid amount to the complainant within 8(eight) weeks from the date of judgment, failing which the amount payable to the complainant will carry interest @ 9% P.A. till the payment is made in full.

 

1. 100. 13. A N N O U N C E D

 

 

 

 

 

SRI S. C. SAHA

PRESIDENT,

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM,

AGARTALA, WEST TRIPURA .

 

 

 

 

SMT. B. BHATTACHARYA, MEMBER, DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AGARTALA, WEST TRIPURA.

SHRI. B. BHATTACHARYA, MEMBER, DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AGARTALA, WEST TRIPURA.