National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Mohinderjit Singh Sethi, Senior ... vs The Indian Airlines, Airlines House, ... on 11 March, 2002
Equivalent citations: II(2003)CPJ205(NC)
ORDER
D.P. Wadhwa, J.(President)
1. Petitioner was the complainant before the State Commission. Alleging deficiency in service by the respondent-Indian Air Lines, petitioner-complainant sought compensation of Rs. 2.00 lakhs. While the District Forum dismissed the complaint holding that there was no deficiency in service, State Commission on appeal filed by the petitioner set aside the order of the District Forum and awarded compensation of Rs. 15,000/- to the petitioner towards harassment undergone by him along with Rs. 2,000/- as costs of litigation. State Commission thus allowed the complainant to an extent. There was direction of payment of interest as well @ 9% per annum in case the amount as awarded is not paid within three months from the date of receipt of the order which is dated May 11, 2001.
2. Petitioner who is a Senior Advocate along with members of his family which consisted of his wife, his advocate son, his daughter-in-law and an infant grand child, had confirmed tickets for travel by the respondent-Airlines for 2.7.94 which was Saturday, from Leh to Chandigarh. Both the petitioner and his son are practicing lawyers in the Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh. Petitioner had gone to Leh for holidaying. He had bought five tickets from Chandigarh Office of the Airlines on 22.6.1994. On 30.6.94 as advised petitioner checked the local office of the Airlines about his booking for his flight back to Chandigarh on 2.7.94. He was shocked to learn that there was no flight from Leh to Chandigarh on 2.7.94 and that there was a flight to Chandigarh a day earlier i.e. on 1.7.94. According to the respondent, however, petitioner approached the local office of the Airlines at Leh on 28.6.94 for reconfirmation of his ticket when he was informed that there was no flight on 2.7.94 and in case petitioner desired to travel on 1.7.94. seats could be confirmed for the flight on that day. It is also the contention of the Airlines that the petitioner was, however, not prepared to accept its proposal to fly on 1.7.94. Petitioner with his family did travel on 2.7.94 from Leh to Jammu. He surrendered his tickets from Leh to Chandigarh and got the tickets from Leh to Jammu. He got the balance amount due on the tickets from Leh to Chandigarh. From Jammu to Chandigarh family of the petitioners had to travel by car for which petitioner sought reimbursement of his claim for Rs. 3500/- which was agreed to by the Airlines and petitioner did get the payment by means of cheque dated 18.3.94 which was duly encashed by him. Airlines says that this amount was paid to the petitioner purely as a gesture of goodwill. Contention of the petitioner is that his holidays and that of his family members were destroyed after he learnt that there was no flight on 2.7.94. Rather his plans for holidays were totally upset causing a great deal of inconvenience, harassment and mental tension and all the time was spent in getting Airline's tickets at least from Leh to Jammu for the flight on 2.7.94. While the petitioner says he was able to get seats to go to Jammu from the army and air force quota, this has not been accepted by the Airlines who says that additional flight was operated on 2.7.94 and utmost courtesy was shown to the petitioner inasmuch as he was accommodated over and above the wait listed passengers. Thus alleging that though he was having confirmed tickets for a flight on 2.7.94 and when there was a flight on that day and the tickets had been confirmed as far back on 22.6.94 petitioner alleged it was a clear case of negligence on the part of the Airlines entitling him to compensation for the harassment and mental agony undergone by him and his family members holidays becoming a disastrous.
3. District Forum after considering the rival contentions of the parties and examining the record came to the conclusion that no deficiency in service could be attributed to the Airlines and rather petitioner saved some expenses due to positive attitude of the Airlines in rendering him proper service. State Commission however, held otherwise and awarded compensation to the petitioner as aforementioned Petitioner wants enhancement of the amount of compensation and for that purpose he has approached the National Commission.
4. Contention of the petitioner has been that there was only one weekly flight and if he could not fly back on 2.7.94 he had to face the prospects of waiting of one week when the High Court was opening on 4th July, 1994 and his family members were in dire need to reach Chandigarh well before the opening of the Courts. But then the petitioner has not offered any explanation as to why he could not advance his travel programme by one day and leave for Chandigarh on 1.7.94 when flight was available on that day. He does not tell as to what harm would have been caused to him a or what loss, if any, he would have suffered if he had travelled back to Chandigarh a day earlier.
5. Airlines does admit its fault in issuing confirmed tickets for 2.7.94 when obviously there was no flight on that day. But then it is contradictory stand of the Airlines as at one place it says that change of the schedule was with effect from 1.7.94 and that change could not be intimated to the petitioner as he had already left Chandigarh for his onward journey and then it is also stated that summer schedule of the Airlines for its various flights were rescheduled to operate from April, 1994. On that account it is stated that the flight which was earlier to operate on Saturday was advanced to Friday and that is how instead of the flight not being there on 2.7.94 and only on 1.7.94. Airlines has also drawn strengths from notification issued by the Central Government under the Rules and Regulations which are operative in view of the provisions of Air Corporations (Transfer and Undertakings and Repeal) Act which protects the Airlines from any such claim or compensation on account of change in schedule of its flights. This is how the Airlines has put up its defence on this account:
"The schedule of Indian Airlines are subject to change without notice. This fact is printed on schedule of Indian Airlines issued form time to time. Copies of four such schedule are enclosed as ex.R-1 to R-3. As per conditions of contract between Indian Airlines and Passengers by virtue of which tickets of Indian Airlines are sold which are duly notified in Gazette of Govt. of India dated 19.07.80 and amended by Notification No. AV 11012/5/79-A dt. 22.08.89 and further amended vide notification No. AV 11012/79-A dated 26.03.92 which is reproduced as under:
'The Company reserves the right, without assigning any reasons, to cancel, advance, reschedule, overfly or delay the commencement or continuance of the flight or alter the stopping places of to deviate from the route of the journey or to change the type of Aircraft in use without thereby incurring any liability in damages or otherwise to the passengers or any other person on any ground whatsoever."
The schedule of flight IC-484 Leh/Chandigarh was also changed from Saturday to Friday and all passengers booked for the above said flight for 02.07.94 were transferred to that of 1st July, 1994 automatically which includes the booking of complainant and his family.
On the ticket Jacket of Indian Airlines, it is printed that Company is not liable for any change reproduced above and this is also in the knowledge of the complainant. From the Ticket Jacket Contract, the complainant is estopped from filing the present complaint....."
6. This aforesaid stand of the Airlines which is statutory, certainly protect the Airlines from any claim of compensation. However, that is not the situation in the case in hand. Here, though the change in schedule had come as far back in April, 1994 yet the confirmed tickets were issued to the petitioner for 2.7.94 when there was no such flight. As noted above, respondent-Airlines admits that it was due to inadvertence. That has certainly caused suffering to the petitioner and his family members.
7. During the course of pendency of this petition, four affidavits were filed by the four family members of the petitioner who had gone with him to Leh. They were not parties in the complaint filed by the petitioner in the District Forum. No doubt they were holding different tickets and it could be said that they were having separate contracts with the Airlines for travel from Leh to Chandigarh and in any case they were certainly beneficiaries of the tickets though purchased by the petitioner as head of the family but then they should have been made parties to the complaint which was not done and we, therefore, will not take notice of the affidavits filed before us.
8. Stand of the petitioner has been vindicated by the State Commission holding that there was deficiency in service on the part of the Airlines and that had caused harassment and inconvenience to the petitioner. But then petitioner has also offered no explanation as to why he could not advance his departure by one day. If we take all these factors into consideration, we do not find it is a fit case for us to exercise our jurisdiction under clause (b) of Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act. 1986. This revision petition is dismissed.