National Consumer Disputes Redressal
H.S. Bhatia & Ors. vs Indian Airlines on 21 January, 2010
RP 2509 / 2002 NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI FIRST APPEAL NO. 28 OF 2007 (From the order dated 3.11.06 in Complaint No. 171/2003 of Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission) 1. H.S. Bhatia 2. Mrs. Swarn Kaur Bhatia W/o Mr. H.S. Bhatia Both R/o 44, Silver Oak Evenue, DLF Phase I, Gurgaon 3. M. Salim 4. Mrs. Sumera Salim W/o M. Salim 5. Master Saadat Salim S/o M. Salim Appellant 3 5 R/o 61, Anandlok August Kranti Marg, New Delhi 110049. Appellants Versus Indian Airlines Ltd. Through its General Manager (Commercial) Indira Gandhi International Airport Terminal I Palam, New Delhi Respondent FIRST APPEAL NO. 40 OF 2007 (From the order dated 3.11.06 in Complaint No. 171/2003 of Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission) Indian Airlines Ltd. Through its General Manager (Commercial) Indira Gandhi International Airport Terminal I Palam, New Delhi Appellant Versus 1. H.S. Bhatia 2. Mrs. Swarn Kaur Bhatia W/o Mr. H.S. Bhatia Both R/o 44, Silver Oak Evenue, DLF Phase I, Gurgaon 3. M. Salim 4. Mrs. Sumera Salim W/o M. Salim 5. Master Saadat Salim S/o M. Salim Respondent 3 5 R/o 61, Anandlok August Kranti Marg, New Delhi Respondents BEFORE:- HONBLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK BHAN, PRESIDENT HONBLE MR. B.K. TAIMNI, MEMBER For the Complainant : Mr. M. Slim, Advocate For Indian Airlines : Mr. Lalit Bhasin, Advocate Mr. Ravi Gopal, Advocate PRONOUNCED ON 21st JAN. 2010 O R D E R
MR. B.K. TAIMNI, MEMBER These two appeals have been filed by both the parties before the State Commission, where Shri H.S. Bhatia & Others (Appellants in FA No. 28 of 2007) had filed a complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Indian Airlines Ltd. (Appellant in FA No. 40 of 2007).
Briefly stated the facts leading to filing the complaint were that the complainants, five in all, had confirmed tickets issued by the Indian Airlines Ltd. for travelling from Srinagar to Delhi on 29.06.03. The scheduled time of departure of the flight was 12:45. When the complainants reached the airport / check-in counter, they were denied boarding on the ground that they have reported late, i.e., at 12:37 whereas they were obliged to report at least 2 hours before the time of departure.
However, the complainants were allowed full refund but it was the case of the complainants that, for no fault of theirs, and having been reported well in time, i.e., at 11:57, when there was sufficient time for departure of flight they were denied boarding, which is a clear case of deficiency in service on the part of the Indian Airlines Ltd. It was also their case that since they were denied boarding and no alternative arrangement was provided, their family had to travel by road. It was also their case that complainant no. 1 & 2 are senior citizens and complainant no. 4 was in the family way and who suffered serious complication and suffered miscarriage. It is in these circumstances a complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Indian Airlines Ltd., was filed before the State Commission, where the matter was contested by the Indian Airlines and the State Commission after hearing the parties allowed the complaint and directed the Indian Airlines to pay a compensation of Rs.20,000/- to each of the complainants, totalling Rs.1 lakh and consolidated cost of Rs.10,000/-. These payments were to be made within one month from the date of passing the order.
Aggrieved / dissatisfied with this order, both the parties have filed two separate appeals before us.
FIRST APPEAL NO.
40 OF 2007 This appeal has been filed by the Indian Airlines Ltd. for setting aside the order passed by the State Commission on the ground that the complainants did not report in time. In fact, they have reported at 12:37, whereas the scheduled time of departure of the flight was 12:45, hence there was no way that the complainants could be accommodated. On the other hand, it was the case of the complainants that they reached the airport at 11:57, may be little late, but passengers were still accommodated, even those who had reached late, and who were among the wait-listed passengers, yet the complainants who had confirmed tickets, were not accommodated.
After hearing the parties, we find that there is an endorsement on the ticket made by Indian Airlines that the passengers reported at 12:37. We also like to reproduce here the letter written by the Station Manager, Indian Airlines, which reads as follows:-
Sub:- Complaint from Mr. M. Saleem IC-825 of 29th June, 2003.
This is further to our earlier letter No. SRI/ADM-15/1332 dated 08.08.2003 and as advised by you, we submit the following:-
1. IC-825 STA 1200 hrs ATA 1220 hrs IC-825 STD
- 1245 hrs ATD 1250 hrs (As per the log book record)
2. Booking Status: SXR/IXJ J-03 Y-63 SXR/DEL J-09 Y-63 Total : J-12 Y-126 (The flight was overbooked by 01 seat in economy class, whereas 08 seats in J-class were unsold)
3. Check-in status: SXR/IXJ J-2+1 Y-72+07 SXR/DEL J-8+0 Y-53+01 Total J-10+1 Y-125+08 TNB J-10+1 Y-125+08 Total 135+09 (10 seats still vacant after accepting pax from W/L)
4. Pax cleared from W/l SXR/IXI - 06 SXR/DEL - 04 Total pax cleared from W/l - 10
5. As per the check-in procedures we were supposed to close the counter at 12:15 hrs, i.e., before 30 minutes of the STD (1245 hrs) but as per the records the W/L was called by our controller and the counter check-in staff only at 1230 hrs. The last Boarding card was allotted approximately at 1235 hrs. After accommodating 10 passengers from the W/L we were again left with 10 seats vacant on this flight and there was no question of refusing the boarding cards to the confirmed passengers. This itself confirmed that the complainant reached late, hence could not be accommodated. It is evident from the SRTC records also that their coach started from TRC at 1130 hrs with 14 passengers on board and the passengers reached lat due security congestion at Gate No. 1 as was said by the complainant himself after reaching Airport (Certificate of SRTC Authorities attached herewith). We tried to accommodate them on the next flight but the next flight was overbooked and was on minus 13 hence it was impossible to accommodate stranded passengers on that flight.
Submitted please.
Important point to note in this letter is that the last passenger was allowed boarding till proximately at 12:35 hours. In our view the word approximately is important. We are unable to appreciate that if the passengers who reached at 12:35, why they could not be accommodated? What was the compulsion of the Indian Airlines to issue boarding cards to passengers who were wait-listed till 12:35hours yet the same was not done with regard to the complainants.
It was contended by Shri Lalit Bhasin, Ld. Counsel for Indian Airlines Ltd. that there is a procedure to be followed, and counter gets closed, manifest is prepared and given to the Captain of the Aircraft, then the ATC clearance is obtained and then flight is permitted to take-off. We have no difficulty in agreeing with Ld. Counsel for Indian Airlines, as far as procedure is concerned. His reliance on the point that the counter was closed at 12:35 hours and nobody could be taken after that time is not supported by any evidence documentary or otherwise, filed, either before the State Commission or before us, that the counter was closed at 12:35 hours. In this perspective the word approximately assumes significance. If wait-listed passengers could be accommodated at 12:35 hours, not accommodating the passengers with confirmed tickets, at 12:37 hours when the counter is not closed, is a clear case of deficiency in service on the part of the Indian Airlines especially when there were 10 vacant seats in the flight in question.
In the aforementioned circumstances, we find no merit in this appeal. Dismissed.
FIRST APPEAL NO. 28 OF 2007 This appeal has been filed by the complainants for enhancement of the compensation. As per settled law, at most, the present case would become a case of denied-boarding, for which the complainants would be entitled to only Denied-Boarding-Compensation. The complainants have already been sufficiently compensated for Denied Boarding Compensation. The contention of the appellant that there was miscarriage with regard to appellant no. 4 will not cut much ice. It was for the complainants to take suitable precautions and not taken an arduous journey when the health of the passenger did not permit. If they did so it was at their own risk. The compensation awarded by the State Commission is just and proper and in line with the regulations.
In the aforementioned circumstances, we find no merit in this appeal.
Dismissed.
Both the appeals stand dismissed in above terms.
..
(ASHOK BHAN, J.) PRESIDENT ..
(B.K. TAIMNI) MEMBER RS/