National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Royal Jordanian Airlines & Others vs Mr. Nanak Singh & Anr. on 1 April, 2010
OP 10/1998
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
NEW DELHI
REVISION
PETITION NO. 2600 OF 2005
[Against
the order dated 22.08.2005 in Appeal No. 670/2005
of
the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh]
1.
Royal Jordanian Airlines,
G-56, Connaught Circus,
New Delhi.
2.
Station Manager
(Mr. Nihal Ali Tally)
G-56, Connaught Circus,
New Delhi.
3.
Royal Jordanian,
B.M.C. Chowk
Jalandhar City
4.
Directors, Managing Directors,
Partners of Royal Jordanian,
G-56, Connaught Circus,
New Delhi
All through its Country Manager
Vs.
1.
Mr. Nanak Singh
S/o S. Bikkar Singh
S/o S. Sohan Singh,
R/o Village Chak Kalan
Tehsil Nakodar
District Jalandhar.
2.
Mr. Antonis Alendandridis
Secretary of Embassy,
Embassy of Greece,
Consular Section,
New Delhi
Petitioners/Opp. Parties
Respondents
Appearance :
For the Petitioners/Opp. Parties
Mr. A.K. Rao, Advocate
For the Respondent No.1
Mr. Jaswant Singh Chhabra,
Advocate
BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.N.P.
SINGH, PRESIDING MEMBER
HON'BLE MR. S.K. NAIK, MEMBER
Pronounced on : 1st April, 2010
ORDER
PER S.K. NAIK, MEMBER The petitioners, Royal Jordanian Airlines and its officials, have filed this revision petition, challenging the concurrent order of the two consumer fora below imposing on them an award of Rs.5 Lakh for deficiency in service.
The dispute between respondent no.1, Mr. Nanak Singh (the complainant) and the petitioners arose under the following circumstance.
The complainant is an Indian citizen and was working in Greece at the relevant period and possessed a valid Indian passport.
During early 2000, he wanted to make a visit to India and obtained the re-entry visa permit from the Greek Authorities, which was valid upto the 6th of March, 2000. In order to be back in Greece before this crucial date for re-entry, he purchased a return journey air ticket from the petitioner/Airlines at Athens, which was confirmed for the return journey from Delhi for the 2nd of March, 2000. While his stay in India, he had cross-checked his booking for the return journey from the petitioner/Airlines branch office at Jalandhar and was reassured that he had a return journey OK ticket for the 2nd of March, 2000.
However, when he reached the Airport to commence his return journey on 2nd of March, 2000, he was informed that he would not be able to board the flight due to over-booking of its capacity. He was at the same time assured that he would be sent by a flight on the 4th of March, 2000. Expecting the petitioners to be true to their commitment, he reached the Airport on the 4th of March, 2000 and was boarded into the aircraft but was later on deplaned again on the pretext of over-booking of passengers. His pleadings that his re-entry to Greece was valid only upto the 6th of March, 2000 and his failure to reach there before that crucial date will result in the authorities not permitting him to enter that country, which will in turn deprive him of his job and livelihood, fell into deaf ear. Even thereafter it took a fortnight for the petitioners/opposite parties/Airlines to manage a flight for the complainant but when he reached Greece on 25th of March, 2000, he was not allowed to stay there since his entry permit had expired on the 6th of March, 2000. When his appeal before the local authorities was summarily rejected, he was deported back to India. No doubt, the petitioners/opposite parties had tried to help the complainant getting his entry permit extended by approaching the Greek Embassy at New Delhi and later through their manager to get the intervention of the Jordanian Embassy to get a re-entry permit for the complainant. They even contacted the complainants employer in Greece to help clear the immigration problem but the fact remains that the complainant was sent back to India, leaving his house and belongings back in Greece, in addition to losing his job forever. On return to India, he was paid a sum of $150 on account of denied boarding compensation.
Aggrieved with the turn of events, which upset the total calculations of the complainant and loss of job and forced deportation back to India which came as a bolt from the blue, he requested the petitioners/opposite parties/Airlines for consideration of compensation and for that he also issued a legal notice calling upon the petitioners/opposite parties/Airlines to make arrangements for his travel and re-entry to Greece, arrange the restoration of a job and pay damages etc. The air tickets, as asked for by the petitioners/opposite parties, were also sent to them but of no concrete response. It was in this backdrop that he filed a consumer complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jalandhar (for short District Forum) on 2nd of January, 2002, seeking a compensation of Rs.4.50 Lakh. The complaint, it appears, was subsequently withdrawn with liberty granted by the District Forum to file fresh complaint on the same cause of action in order to meet the petitioners/opposite parties objection that necessary permission of the Central Government to sue them had not been obtained. The permission as such was not necessary as clarified by the Central Government later and that is how a second complaint, as permitted by the District Forum, came to be filed on 1st of October, 2003, this time seeking a compensation of Rs.18.80 Lakh. The District Forum on consideration of the pleadings, evidence and arguments of the parties by its order, over-ruling the objection of the petitioners/opposite parties/Airlines that the complaint was barred by limitation, held the petitioners/opposite parties/Airlines deficient in service and awarded a compensation of Rs.4.50 Lakh, besides Rs.50,000/- for expenditure for future efforts to obtain re-entry permit, air ticket and cost of litigation etc. Thus, the petitioners/opposite parties/Airlines was burdened with a liability of Rs.5.00 Lakh to be paid within one month.
Aggrieved against the award of the District Forum that the petitioners/opposite parties/Airlines filed an appeal before the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh (for short State Commission), which did not find any merit in their appeal and thereby confirmed the award of the District Forum.
Aggrieved yet again that the petitioner/Airlines has filed this revision petition to assail the State Commissions order dated 22.08.2005. At the time of the arguments before us learned counsel for the petitioner/Airlines has once again raised preliminary objection with regard to maintainability of the complaint on the ground of territorial jurisdiction, limitation etc. According to him, the District Forum at Jalandhar had no territorial jurisdiction and the complainant, after having received compensation to the tune of $150 without any reservation or protest, was not entitled to file a complaint. Further, after a period of almost two years from the date of incident he filed a complaint on 2nd of January, 2002 before the District Forum in which he had sought a compensation of Rs.4.50 Lakh but the same complaint was withdrawn, though with the permission of the District Forum. He thereafter filed a fresh complaint on the same cause of action on 1st of October, 2003, which was clearly beyond the period of limitation of two years. Since the compensation sought in the fresh complaint stated Rs.18.80 Lakh, it should be treated as a new and fresh complaint and was, therefore, clearly barred by limitation.
We are afraid, these objections of the learned counsel for the petitioner/Airlines have to be over-ruled, firstly on the ground that the same objections were raised before the fora below and have been dealt with at length. On the question of territorial jurisdiction objection has been rightly rejected as the complainant had crosschecked the confirmation of his OK ticket from Delhi to Athens at the petitioners/opposite parties branch office at Jalandhar and, therefore, clearly a part of cause of action arose at Jalandhar. With regard to limitation, it may be stated that it would start from 2nd of January, 2002 as the District Forum at the time of withdrawal of the first complaint had granted permission to the complaint to file a fresh complaint for the same cause of action. The fresh complaint having been filed on the 1st of October, 2003 was clearly within the prescribed period of two years and, therefore, the lower fora has very correctly held it to have been filed within the period of limitation.
On the merits of the case, it was submitted before us by learned counsel for the petitioners/opposite parties/Airlines that the complainant had failed to reconfirm his ticket 72 hours before the journey as required in terms of international practice and the companys policy about which the complainant was informed at the time of ticketing. It is submitted that this is an accepted international practice adopted by all Airlines of international flights to facilitate the Airlines to issue additional tickets to cover-up vacant seats and to avoid loss due to failure of certain percentage of passengers, who, despite having booked tickets, do not report on time or do not cancel their confirmed reservation which deprives an opportunity to other willing passengers to travel on the flights. Since the complainant had not taken any step to reconfirm his booking 72 hours in advance, he could not be provided with a seat on the flight and he was off-loaded from the flight as there was no seat available because of heavy booking of flight due to Haj.
Learned counsel has further submitted that the negligence of the complainant with regard to reconfirmation of his booking apart, the State Commission has failed to appreciate the steps taken and efforts made by the petitioner/Airlines to approach the Greek Embassy in India to get the re-entry permit of the complainant extended and further their Head Office at Athens having taken up the matter with the Greek Authorities to help the complainant reenter Greece and even approaching his employer. It was unfortunate that their efforts to send the complainant to Athens on the 4th of March, 2000 in an Air India flight did not materialize despite their best efforts for which they cannot be held liable.
Finally, it was contended that the complainant having received a compensation of $150 in full and final settlement of the claims without any protest could not file a consumer complaint. In any case, the compensation awarded by the District Forum is disproportionate if considered in the background that the petitioner/Airlines did everything in its power to help the complainant in a sincere and bona fide manner. It was in this background that the learned counsel has submitted that both the fora below have committed irregularity in holding the petitioner/Airlines deficient in service. Their orders, therefore, need to be set aside and the complaint dismissed.
As already stated, the preliminary objections have been raised on flimsy grounds and have been rightly rejected by the fora below. Even on merits, the main emphasis to apportion the blame on the complainant for not having reconfirmed his booking 72 hours in advance has to be considered in the background of the assurance given to the complainant that he would be sent to Athens a day after i.e. on the 4th of March, 2000. His request to the petitioners/opposite parties/Airlines that his reentry permit expires on the 6th of March, 2000 ought to have been given the topmost consideration by the petitioners/opposite parties/Airlines and not taken lightly as it so happened since on the 4th of March, 2000 he was first given a boarding pass and permitted to board the aircraft but was subsequently off-loaded. One can well imagine the plight of a passenger who having entered into an aircraft and hoping to reach his destination prior to expiry of his reentry permit is forced to get down with no hope of any alternate flight on the same day or the next. It must have been a traumatic experience and one has to place oneself in the complainants position to realize what frightful experience the complainant must have passed through. While the practice of booking over the permissible capacity in anticipation of some cancellation may be prevalent, any passenger with a confirmed OK ticket who comes in time cannot perhaps be denied boarding. It is not the case of the petitioners/opposite parties/Airlines that the complainant either reported late or was a tail-ender to have been denied the boarding on the 2nd of March, 2000. To blame the complainant that he ought to have booked his ticket for a period even earlier to 2nd of March, 2000 even though his reentry permit was valid until the 6th of March, 2000 is preposterous to say the least. Going by their own argument that the flights were over-booked because of Haj, the argument will recoil on them as the petitioners/opposite parties/Airlines ought to have taken this very factor into account while issuing confirmed tickets.
Further, when an assurance was given to the complainant that he would be sent to Athens on the 4th of March, 2000, the petitioners/opposite parties/Airlines ought to have made all efforts to ensure that there was absolutely no lacuna whatsoever left for pushing the complainant into the flight. Ironically, the complainant having boarded the aircraft was forced to get down again on the same flimsy ground of over-booking which, to our mind, is absolutely not tenable. The plea of follow-up action taken by the petitioners/opposite parties/Airlines to facilitate reentry by approaching the Greek Embassy in Delhi or the authorities in Athens, will not mitigate the deficiency in service, which had immensely damaged the interest of the complainant. The argument that the opposite parties were neither aware of the limited days of reentry available to the complainant or that they cannot be held responsible for the consequential loss to the interest of the complainant, has to be considered in the background of the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case.
It may further be stated that the learned counsel for the petitioner/Airlines in support of his case has relied upon the order of this Commission in the case of Dr. Arun Jain Vs. Thai Airways International Ltd. [II (2003) CPJ 201 (NC)]. We have gone through the said order. In that case, the complainant, who was having a confirmed ticket for travel to Bangkok by Thai Airlines leaving on the morning of 03.03.1996 at 2.15 am, claimed that he had reached the Airport much before the reporting time but the opposite party/Airlines had contested his version by contending that he had reached late and by that time the check-in counter had been closed. From a perusal of the flight manifesto, the Commission found that the flight in fact had accommodated six wait-listed passengers and held the complainant to have not reached in time to catch the flight. It was in that background that the opposite party/Airlines was held not to be deficient in service. The facts of the present case are totally different and the reliance placed on this order by the petitioner is misplaced. The counsel has also referred to the order of this Commission in the case of Rajinder Pal Jaura (NR) Vs. Secretary, Union of India & Anr. [I (2003) CPJ 24 (NC)], which again will not help the cause of the petitioners/opposite parties/Airlines since the compensation therein was sought on the basis of a self-serving document which the complainant had managed from the owner of the company with whom he had claimed to have an appointment for a business deal. It was in that background that the claim was held to be too remote to attract any compensation. In the present case, the mental agony, harassment, frustration, loss of job and reputation etc. are too obvious to be ignored.
Further, while the complainant has sought a relief of 18.80 Lakh, the District Forum has awarded a sum of Rs.5.00 Lakh, which cannot be said to be the total consequential or remote loss that the complainant has suffered. But for the deficiency in service he would have been back in Athens in his job and also take care of his property which he had to lose for the want of proper service by the petitioners/opposite parties/Airlines and his loss cannot be assessed. In this background the compensation of Rs.5.00 Lakh awarded by the District Forum and confirmed by the State Commission, in our view, appears to be fully justified.
The revision petition under the circumstances is dismissed, however, with no order as to cost.
Sd/-
(B.N.P. SINGH) (PRESIDING MEMBER) Sd/-
(S.K. NAIK) MEMBER Mukesh/