State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Amarjit Singh vs Air India on 8 January, 2016
2nd Additional Bench
PUNJAB STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION,
DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH
First Appeal No. 1403 of 2014
Date of institution: 16.10.2014
Date of decision : 08.01.2016
Amarjit Singh Advocate son of Late Shri Swaran Singh aged about 66
years resident of 22/5, S.J.S. Anenue, Airport Road, Amritsar.
.....Appellant/complainant
Versus
1. Air India Ltd. Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400021
through its Director/Chairman/Manager.
2. Air India Airline House, Gurdwara Rakab Ganj Road, New Delhi
through its Director/Manager/Principal Officer.
3. Sardar Vallab Bhai Patel International Airport, Ahmadabad,
through its Managing Director/Director/Chairman/Person over
all Incharge.
4. Air India Ltd. behind M.K. International Hotel, Ranjit Avenue,
Amritsar through its Manager/Director.
......Respondents/opposite parties
Appeal against the order dated 02.09.2014
passed by the District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Amritsar.
Before:-
Sh. Gurcharan Singh Saran, Presiding Judicial Member
Sh. Jasbir Singh Gill, Member Mrs. Surinder Pal Kaur, Member Present:-
For the appellant : Sh. Ravi Malhotra, Advocate For respondents No. 1,2 & 4: Sh. S.R. Chaudhary, Advocate For respondent No. 3 : Sh. Jagdish Manchanda, Advocate First Appeal No. 1403 of 2014 2 GURCHARAN SINGH SARAN (PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER) This appeal has been preferred by appellant/complainant (hereinafter referred as 'complainant') under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act') against the order dated 02.09.2014 in C.C. No. 733 of 24.10.2013 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Amritsar (in short the 'District Forum') vide which the complaint filed by the complainant was allowed with directions to OPs No. 1, 2 & 4 to refund the amount of the ticket to the complainant i.e. Rs. 3300/- and to pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 10,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs. 2000/-.
2. Complainant Amarjeet Singh filed the complaint under section 11 and 12 of the Act against respondents/opposite parties (hereinafter referred as 'OPs') on the averments that he is a senior citizen and was working as an advocate in District Courts, Amritsar. The son of the complainant was posted at Air Force Station, District Gandhi Nagar, Gujarat and was residing in Gandhi Nagar with his family and he had gone there to see them. He got booked his return e-ticket on 21.08.2013 for 24.09.2013 through online at goibibo.com vide ticket No. 098-4145972881 in a domestic flight from Ahmedabad to Amritsar Via Delhi i.e. Flight No. AI 818 from Ahmedabad to New Delhi and Flight No. AI 114 from New Delhi to Amritsar. On 01.08.2013 he got fracture in his left thigh in the accident. On 24.09.2013, he reached at Sardar Vallabh Bhai Patel International Airport alongwith his luggage where he found his flight was changed from Terminal 1 to Terminal 2 and it was changed from domestic to international. The luggage was got checked by the security and sent First Appeal No. 1403 of 2014 3 for boarding in Cargo but at the last security point, complainant was stopped by Security Officer of OPs on account of wearing Kirpan of four inches which was very much allowed in domestic flights but OPs did not allow it as the status of the flight was changed from domestic to international where wearing of Kirpan was not allowed. Complainant was a religious person and baptized sikh and as such he was fully aware that the Kirpan was not allowed in international flights, therefore, he had got his seat booked in the domestic flight to avoid any problem but status was changed without any notice to the complainant, as a result of which he suffered a lot of harassment, mental pain, agony and inconvenience besides loss of his clients in his profession at Amritsar. Finding no other way, he got booked his train ticked from Ahmedabad to Jalandhar alongwith his daughter-in- law on 02.10.2013 as he required assistance/attendance with him of some person being an old and handicapped person due to accident fracture. This act and conduct of OPs amounted to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on their part. Hence the complaint filed for the refund of air fare of Rs. 3303/- and compensation of Rs. 3 lac.
3. The complaint was contested by OPs. OPs No. 1, 2 & 4 in their joint written reply took the preliminary objections that Kirpan was not allowed in the international flight. In international flight, it can be carried only in the baggage. The complaint was not legally maintainable as there was no deficiency in services. CISF authorities who were deputed at airport were not made party, therefore, the complaint was bad for non joinder of necessary parties and that the complainant had not come to the Forum with clean hands. On merits, First Appeal No. 1403 of 2014 4 booking of air ticked with these OPs for 24.09.2013 from Ahmedabad to Delhi in flight No. AI- 818 and from Delhi to Amritsar in Flight No. AI-114 was admitted. However, they had no knowledge about any fracture got by the complainant. Flight No. AI-114 from Delhi to Amritsar was an international flight and the complainant was not allowed by CISF to carry Kirpan inside the cabin as the Kirpal was not allowed in international flights. Even this fact was admitted by the complainant in his complaint. Complainant did not bother to check the status of the flight before commencement of the journey. Kirpan was not allowed by security staff of CIFS as per rules and regulations. Therefore, there was no deficiency in service on their part. Other averments of the complaint were denied. It was denied that there was any unfair trade practice or deficiency in service on their part. The complaint was without merit and it be dismissed.
4. OP No. 3 in their written version/reply took the preliminary objections that the complaint was legally not maintainable as this Forum had no territorial jurisdiction; no cause of action had accrued to the complainant to file this complaint; the complaint was filed just to harass this OP and that the complainant was estopped by his act and conduct to file this complaint. On merits, this OP denied for want of knowledge about booking of the flight with OPs No. 1, 2 & 4 for 24.09.2013. However, it was admitted that the status of the flight was changed from domestic to international. The complainant was stopped by security staff as he was wearing Kirpan of four inches which was not allowed in the international flights, which was duly in the knowledge of the complainant. The son of the complainant Kultaran Singh had filed civil suit which was dismissed by Sh. Rajesh First Appeal No. 1403 of 2014 5 Bhagat, Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Amritsar vide order dated 30.08.2012. This OP was wrongly impleaded as this OP had nothing to do with booking of the flight or allow or not to allow Kirpan in the flight which was concern of the security agency. There was no unfair trade practice or deficiency in service on the part of this OP. The complaint against this OP was without merit and it be dismissed.
5. Before the District Forum, parties adduced evidence in support of their contentions. Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex. C-1, copy of air ticket as Ex. C-2, copy of statement made by the airport authority Ex. C-3 copy of operation note of Apollo Hospital International Ltd. Ex. C-4, copy of railway tickets Ex. C-5 and Ex. C-6, copy of taxi receipt Ex. C-7 and closed the evidence. On the other hand OPs No. 1, 2 & 4 tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh. Bhup Singh Manager Ex. OP 1, 2 & 4 and closed the evidence. OP No. 3 tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh. Sunil Dutt, Airport Director, Sri Guru Ram Dass Ji Internatinal Airport, Raja Sansi, Amritsar Ex. OP3/1, authority letter Ex. OP3/2, circular of Buerau of Civil Aviation Security Ex. OP3/3 and closed the evidence.
6. After going through the allegations as alleged in the complaint, written reply filed by OPs, evidence and documents on the record, the learned District Forum allowed the complaint in terms stated above.
7. This appeal has been filed by the appellant/complainant for enhancement of compensation.
8. In the appeal, it has been stated that he was handicapped person due to fracture. He suffered lot of inconvenience, mental tension and agony when he was not allowed to carry Kirpan in flight First Appeal No. 1403 of 2014 6 and being baptized sikh he did not travel without Kirpan. No notice was issued to the complainant with regard to change of the status of the flight from domestic to international. Accordingly, he could not reach Amritsar to join the practice and suffered a lot in his profession. The compensation allowed by the District Forum is too inadequate and compensation be allowed as demanded in the complaint. Whereas on the other side counsel for OPs No. 1, 2 & 4 stated that the compensation is to be given according to the deficiency. The complainant was not allowed the international flight alongwith Kirpan Singh on account of security reasons by security agency and OPs were not responsible. Otherwise adequate compensation has already been granted and the complainants under the Act cannot be allowed to enrich themselves.
9. We have considered the contentions as raised by the parties.
10. So far as unfair trade practice and deficiency in service is concerned that has been determined by the District Forum against OPs No. 1, 2 & 4. Those findings have not been challenged by OPs as they did not file any appeal against the impugned order, therefore, now we are to consider only whether compensation allowed to the complainant is adequate or there is any chance for its enhancement. It is well settled law under the Act, compensation to the consumer is to be allowed keeping in view the deficiency in service on the part of OPs. Compensation cannot be allowed to enrich the complainants. The complainant had paid Rs. 3303/- as air fare and the same has been allowed and three times compensation has been allowed by the District Forum. In case, the complainant was handicapped at the time of travelling, OPs are not responsible in any manner. He has First Appeal No. 1403 of 2014 7 alleged that he could not join his profession due to fracture. He was already residing at Gandhi Nagar with the family of his son and he was delayed by one week to join the profession at Amritsar. However, on the record he has not placed any data how he suffered in his profession or any case was decided against him due to his non presence. Therefore, we are of the opinion that adequate compensation has already been granted by the District Forum. We do not see any scope for its enhancement. We are of the opinion that the findings so recorded by the District Forum are correct. The same are hereby affirmed.
11. In view of the above, we do not see any merit in the appeal and the same is hereby dismissed.
12. The arguments in these appeals were heard on 06.01.2016 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties as per rules.
(GURCHARAN SINGH SARAN) PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER (JASBIR SINGH GILL) MEMBER (SURINDER PAL KAUR) MEMBER January 8, 2016.
Rupinder First Appeal No. 1403 of 2014 8