State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
V.Ramachandran vs Air India, Rep. By Mr.P.S.Rajagopal on 27 March, 2008
CORRECTED ON : BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI Present : Hon'ble Thiru Justice K.SAMPATH PRESIDENT Thiru Pon. GUNASEKARAN, B.A., B.L., MEMBER-I O.P. No. 17/1999 DATED THIS THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF MARCH, 2008 1. V.Ramachandran 24, Nungambakkam High Road, Chennai : 34. 2. Dr.Mrs.Padma Ramachandran :: Complainants rep. 24, Nungambakkam High Road, by Adv. Chennai : 34. M/s.Anita Sumanth Vs. Air India, rep. by Mr.P.S.Rajagopal :: Opposite party Customer Relations Manager Tamil Nadu rep. by Adv. No.19, Rukmani Lakshmipathy Road Mr.O.R.Santhana- Chennai : 8. krishnan O R D E R
K.SAMPATH J.
The prayer in the complaint is for a direction to the Opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.5,46,160/- to the complainant on the following allegations :-
For their travel to Dubai they were allotted seat Nos.50E & F in Air India flight No.AI 705 on 25/3/1998. Right from the commencement of the journey, the air conditioning in the zone in which the complainants were seated was not functioning. They put a member of the cabin crew on notice of this. The said member, instead of giving a proper answer, responded rudely. The complainants put another cabin crew member on notice who, unable to rectify the defect, brought in the Supervisor. The crew admitted that even before the aircraft took off the air conditioning in the said zone was not working and nothing could be done. In spite of their such knowledge they had not taken any action to rectify the defect. Consequently the journey of four hours was miserable. The temperature in the zone of the complainants was very high.
The complainants were thus forced to sit through the journey in most uncomfortable, unhealthy and unhygienic conditions and by the time the complainants reached the destination, both the complainants felt very sick. Because of this situation, during the entire duration of their stay in Dubai the complainants took ill and could not attend to any of their programmes. The entire trip was thus a total waste. Apart from the cost of the tickets, the complainants had spent other sums, all of which had become total waste on account of the uncomfortable, unhealthy and unhygienic in-flight travel conditions. Their agony was entirely due to the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party Airlines. On their return, the complainants addressed a letter dated 7th April 1998 setting out the above facts to the opposite party. By their letter dated 4/5/98, the opposite party admitted that the air conditioning was not functioning and instead deliberately stated that the zone was not cool to the optimum, so opposed to the fact. The zone was very hot and there was no cooling since the air conditioning in the zone was not available. The complainants caused a lawyers notice to be issued on 3/6/98 claiming compensation of Rs.10 lakhs. A reply was received from the counsel for the opposite party dated 16-6-98/20-6-98 stating that due to development of a malfunctioning in the aircraft the zone in which the complainants were seated was not cool to the optimum ; that the flight engineer on board did try to rectify the problem but it could not be rectified. On the return flight, the air conditioning functioned satisfactorily.
2. The Opposite party have filed a version denying the allegations in the complaint. It is not correct to say that that the crew admitted that even before the aircraft took off the air conditioning in the said zone was not working and that nothing could be done. Equally it is not correct to say that the crew were fully aware that the air conditioning in the said zone was not working even when it took off despite which no action appeared to have been taken to rectify the said defect. It is denied that the journey was rendered miserable, that the temperature in the zone occupied by the complainants was very high and that the complainants were forced to sit through the journey in most uncomfortable, unhealthy and unhygienic conditions particularly since the said zone was fully occupied and by the time they reached the destination both the complainants felt sick. It is not correct to say that the complainants had been put to severe loss and embarrassment by reason of the alleged deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. The complaint is liable to be dismissed.
3. Proof affidavits were filed. On the side of the complainants Exs.A-1 to A-7 have been marked. No document has been marked on the side of the opposite party.
Written submissions were also filed.
4. Arguments were heard. During the course of the hearing, we suggested to the opposite party to give a letter of apology to the complainants expressing regret for what had happened.
Such a letter was also filed before us.
We suggested to the complainants to accept the apology and give a quietus to the dispute. The complainants did not agree to the said course. We directed the opposite party to file an affidavit from an expert in their Airlines as to what exactly happened and what was the cause for such a problem. The expert proof affidavit by one Mr.Kumar Ganesan has been filed and the allegations in the said affidavit are to the following effect :- The environment of any modern jetliners passenger cabin is controlled for its pressure to protect from low ambient pressure at high altitude, temperature for human external comfort and ventilation for human respiratory system. These are incorporated in the basic designs of the aircraft structure and systems. In the Boeing 747-200 Aircraft which flew the complainants from Chennai to Dubai the passengers cabin is divided into five zones and each zone temperature is individually controlled automatically through zone temperature controllers. This airplane is equipped with three air conditioner packs [ACP] each controlled by its individual pack controllers. The cool air output from these three units is at lowest temperature as demanded by the individual zones. The hot trim air from the engine compressor, through a valve, is added to the duct going to the individual zone to attain the selected temperature of the zone.
The design of these equipments and controls are such that the temperature in each zone can be set to minimum of 650F(180C) and to maximum of 850F(290C). Should the automatic zone temperature control fail due to blocked or faulty zone temperature sensor, it has manual back up control for each zone. Should the manual back up control fail due to any hardware failure like trim air valve stuck in close position, the cool air from the ACP will only be ducted into the cabin or if trim air valve stuck in open position, then the maximum temperature (290C) conditioned air will be ducted into the zone.
Should the zone conditioned air ducts rupture, then the draft from the zone ahead will cool the zone. Thus, in any failure condition of a worst scenario, the temperature of each zone can never he higher than 290C which may not be comfortable for many but certainly not horrible as the complainants say that a person may fall sick. In addition, there is a gasper fan which circulates the air from within the cabin through individual seat outlets, will give a refreshing feeling to the passenger when he occupies the seat just after boarding. During the time when airplane is on ground, the doors are kept open for various activities like passenger boarding, cargo and catering loading.
Where the ambient temperature at airport like Chennai is normally high, being coastal and tropical, the cabin gets warm. It takes half an hour time for the cabin to cool after all the doors are closed prior to take off. The Zone E where the complainants were seated is the largest and densely occupied, may take slightly longer time but certainly not four hours. The conditioned air enters the passenger cabin just below ceiling level and flows across the cabin and exits from the floor level. The exiting air from each zone is drawn from the aircraft through two out flow valves, which are located at the aft end of the aircraft body (fuselage). An electronic cabin pressure controller controls the rate of opening and closing of these out flow valves, thereby maintaining the pressure inside the entire cabin at a comfortable pressure (maximum equivalent to that existing at an altitude of 8000 feet) at any cruise altitude at which the airplane may be flying. This cabin pressure, more conveniently known as cabin altitude, of 8000 feet is a design feature as stipulated by the Regulatory Authority of the country manufacture. There is approximately 2.1 cubit feet per minute (cfm) of oxygen in every 10 cfm of fresh air supplied into the passenger cabin even at 8000 feet cabin altitude for an average oxygen consumption less than 0.1 cfm per passenger. The rate of conditioned air flow into the cabin and its exit from the airplane will maintain the ventilation of the passenger cabin. The stagnant air above the cabin ceiling and below cabin floor is re-circulated into the cabin through the high efficient filters and re-circulating fans. This results in 10 cfm of fresh air ventilation and 20 cfm total air ventilation for each passenger and the entire cabin air is continuously being changed in every two minutes. By mixing 50% of fresh air and 50% of re-circulated air, a balance is achieved to maintain a modest level of humidity and a reduced level of a zone exposure at high altitudes. All the Boeing airplanes are designed to ensure this as per guidelines of Occupational Safety and Health Administration [OSHA] and American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists [ACGIH]. The predominant source of carbon dioxide in the airplane cabin is human metabolism. Therefore, the carbon dioxide concentration in the cabin depends on the ventilation rate and the number of occupants. The carbon dioxide limit for airplanes is set by the FAA [FAR 25.831] as 30,000 parts per million (ppm) and Boeing airplanes ventilation system have approximately 1500 ppm, well below FAR and ACGIH limits. With all the above mentioned built-in safety features of the airplane design, it is difficult to believe that one will fall sick due to a warm cabin temperature. The aircraft did not report any defect in the cabin environment control system in the next sector. It was functioning satisfactorily all the while and no other passenger of the said flight complained about the warm cabin. As per Boeing, it is unlikely that cabin air sufficient contaminants to cause such occasionally reported conditions as fatigue, head ache, nausea or respiratory problems.
5. According to the complainants, the air conditioning in the zone was not working from the commencement of the journey and this was brought to the notice of the cabin crew. Indeed there appears to have been some problem and the flight engineer in-charge attempted to rectify the defect but he was not successful. There is absolutely nothing to show that from the very beginning there was any problem with regard to the air conditioning in the zone occupied by the complainants. Possibly, the air conditioning in that zone was not adequate at the time the airplane commenced its journey. According to the experts affidavit, the zone occupied by the complainants was a congested zone having the largest number of passengers and densely occupied and it would have taken some time more for the cooling system to become effective. It is not necessary to refer to the correspondence between the parties as the fact remains that there was some problem in the air conditioning which was noticed after the plane took off and in spite of the best efforts taken by the flight engineer it could not be rectified. At our instance a letter of apology was given by the opposite party to the following effect :-
We wish to state that we have understood the discomfort and hardship caused to you, during your travel along with your wife on our flight AI-705/25Mar98 from Chennai to Dubai, due to the air-conditioning on the aircraft was not to the optimum level. We regret for the inconvenience caused to you and to your wife and we sincerely apologize for the same.
6. This letter is placed on record and the complaint is closed.
Pon.GUNASEKARAN K.SAMPATH MEMBER-I PRESIDENT INDEX : YES / NO *Basu\Z\KSJ\airlines*