State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
G.L. Sanghi vs Scandinavian Airlines on 17 September, 2008
Order Reserved IN THE STATE COMMISSION: DELHI (Constituted under section 9 clause (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986) Date of Decision: 17-09-2008 Complaint No.C-247/200 1. Shri G.L. Sanghi -Complainants Sr. Advocate, S/o Shri V.K. Sanghi, 2. Smt. Premlata Sanghi, W/o Shri G.L. Sanghi, 3. Km. Devangi Sanghi (D/o Shri Vipin & Gunjan Sanghi), Grand Daughter of Shri G.L. Sanghi, Through her next friend Shri G.L. Sanghi All R/o: C-35, Neeti Bagh, New Delhi-110049. Versus 1. SCANDINAVIAN AIRLINES -Opposite Party No.1 System Denmark, Norway, Sweden SE 19587, Stockholm, Sweden Through its President, Mr. Jan Stenberg, Having its Delhi Office At: Amba Deep Building, 14, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi-110001. 2. Pearl Global Tours & Travel, -Opposite Party No.2 904, Rohit House, Tolstoy Marg, New Delhi. 3. M/s Jasmine Travels Pvt. Ltd.-Opposite Party No.3 N-G,10 Saket, New Delhi. CORAM: Mr. Justice J.D. Kapoor, President Ms. Rumnita Mittal, Member
1. Whether reporters of local newspapers b be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
Justice J.D. Kapoor (Oral) The complainant No.1 herein was a reputed Senior Advocate practicing in Supreme Court of India and was a frequent traveller in International Airlines to attend various conferences and seminars held all over the world. Complainant No.2 is the wife and Complainant No.3 is an eight years old grand daughter of the Complainant No.1 respectively.
2. Opposite Party No.1 (in short O.P) is an International Airline i.e. SCANDINAVIAN AIRLINES System Denmark, Norway, Sweden, SAS in short.
3. For multifarious deficiencies of OP causing loss, mental agony and harassment, emotional sufferings, complainants have sought compensation of Rs. 5 lacs each to complainant Nos. 1, 2 and 3 and cost of the complaint.
4. Complainants case, in brief, is that they booked themselves with Scandinavian Airlines through OP No.3 M/s Jasmine Travels Pvt. Ltd. for 31.5.1999 from Delhi Copenhagen Oslo - New York Delhi. Complainants No.1 & 2 were travelling on business class ticket and Complainant No.3 was traveling on economy class ticket. All the tickets for the whole trip were issued by the OP No.2 through OP No.3 who are agents of OP No.1. The OPs have always represented and assured that its passengers would get the highest standard of service and special consideration for children. The Complainants No.1 & 2 alongwith their eight year old grand daughter who was traveling with them on an economy/tourist class ticket boarded the Flight being Flt. No.968 on 31.5.1999 from Delhi to Copenhagen. From Copenhagen they took Flt. SK 470 to Oslo on 6th June, 1999. And left Oslo by Flt. SK 907 for Newark and ultimately returned to New Delhi on 9th July, 1999 by Flt. No. SK 902.
5. While making bookings for the aforesaid trip a special specific demand was placed by the Complainants (being strict vegetarians) on the OPs for providing strict vegetarian meals to all the three Complainants throughout their to and from passage from New Delhi to Oslo and Oslo to Newark and on their return journey from Newark to New Delhi. However, despite the aforesaid binding obligation, on their flight from Oslo to Newark (USA) on 6th June, 1999 (which was a very long duration flight) no arrangements to serve vegetarian meals were made.
Several requests by the complainants were indifferently ignored. Later on, coupled with arrogance some concoction was brought which was totally unpalatable and had to be rejected. On further request being made, as the Complainant No.3 who was only 8 years old and who had not eaten anything for quite some time, the behaviour of the crew turned more arrogant. They even went to the extent saying that in the economy/tourist class, no vegetarian meal is at all served. In fact, the behaviour of the crew during the entire journey was so impolite and rude that the Complainants had no option but to refuse to accept any services offered including soft drinks during the flights.
Attempts to draw the crews attention by pressing the call button were not being attended to.
6. The Complainant consequently wrote two complaints in his own hand in the aircraft itself and inter-alia recorded the inadequate and indifferent service, rude behaviour and of not providing any vegetarian mean during the flight. He handed over the said complaints to the crew members with a request to hand over the complaints to their Business Manager for proper inquiry/investigation of the same. However, the same were not responded to.
7. On their return journey, the Complainants had to wait for around 10 hours at Copenhagen Airport viz. from 13.25 Hrs. to 12 Hrs. to take the flight for New Delhi. During this waiting period the In-charge of the OP No.1 refused to allow the child to sit with Complainants No.1 & 2 in the business class lounge. The OP No.1 instead of considering the bonafide and genuine request of the complainants bluntly refused the said request and told them that the Complainant No.3 would not be permitted even to sit in business class lounge. The Complainants No.1 & 2 faced with this totally unexpected situation requested the lounge manager that the child could not be left out alone and that they should appreciate the situation and, at least permit the child to sit with them. On a clear undertaking that the child would not eat or drink anything from the services made available in the business class lounge it was permitted with reluctance. Consequently, the Complainants had to go out to purchase eatables to the child during the long stay at the airport while waiting for their connecting flight.
8. Being disturbed and humiliated by the behaviour of the OP No.1 the complainants immediately on their return addressed to the OPs two letters dated 21.7.1999 and 23.7.1999 complaining about the rude, arrogant and impolite behaviour of the cabin crew, refusal to accommodate the Complainant No.3 in the business class lounge on humanitarian ground, and, not serving vegetarian food to the Complainants despite specific recorded demand.
9. However, the O.P.1 vide its letters dated 29th July, 1999 and 5.8.1999 took two different stands firstly by denying any liability on its part on the ground that vegetarian meal confirmed on the 29th May, 1999 was for some reason deleted by the travel agent on 2nd June, 1999 and consequently the same was not loaded; and secondly by denying their liability for not providing vegetarian meal on the ground that the vegetarian meal booked for the 7th June 1999 flight was deleted as a result of cancellation of the flight segment on 2.6.1999 by the travel agency and when they were rebooked for the date 6.6.1999, the special meal request was not recorded.
10. The complainants vide their communication dated 28.8.1999 to the OP No.1 demanded compensation for the aforesaid deficiency of service, conduct and consequences etc. and consequently filed the present complaint claiming compensation of Rs. 5-00 Lakh each from O.P. 1,2 and 3 jointly and severally.
11. In its defence the O.P.1 took the stand that there are only some vague allegations in the complaint about the 3rd complainant who had an Economy Class Ticket, not being allowed to partake of refreshment in the Business Class Lounge, which, anyway, obviously the 3rd complainant was not entitled to. The provision of any substantial vegetarian meal falls within the ambit, of Article 13, of the SAS Conditions of Carriage by air. It is a special additional facility rendered to passengers in a display of courtesy and facilitation/accommodation, and is not part of the basic service rendered by the OP No.1. There is no consideration paid whatsoever for such special requests as the meal request in question in this case. As a result, the complainants are not consumers within the meaning of Section 2(1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act. The complainants purchased the tickets from OP No.3 and the same ticketing was done through the OP No.2, both being travel agents.
12. That there was no problem on 4 of the 5 sectors. It is only with regard to the 3rd sector i.e. from Oslo-Newark. On the 3rd sector, the complainants were originally booked to travel on 7th June, 1999. The same reservation on 7th June, 1999 was cancelled by the travel agent in the online booking system.
The said reservation on 7th June, had a vegetarian meal request on record.
However, when the said reservation was cancelled on 7th June, and a fresh reservation was made the same vegetarian meal request was not re-entered in the reservation system.
Unless the same meal request is entered into the system at the time of making the fresh booking, the relevant entry in the system does not reflect the special vegetarian meal request. In the absence of any such indication in the reservation log on a particular date, it is obvious, that the vegetarian meal will not be prepared in accordance with standard procedures. The said vegetarian meal is not a standard but an additional facility to the passenger, and is provided, only subject to special request, as reflected in the booking status. The vegetarian meal request for 7th June was automatically deleted along with the cancellation of the reservation for 7th June, the OP No.1, had no cause, to expect, that a special vegetarian meal had to be prepared for the complainants on 6th June. It is reiterated that the OP No.1 functions in accordance with the records of the reservation on the online computerized system and the said procedure is bound to be somewhat mechanical and the OP No.1 in view of the volume of passengers it handles, can never be expected to take particular note of any particular passengers vegetarian meal preference abroad some other flight in the past and relate it to the same passengers journey at some later stage, establish the identity of these passengers and take a special interest in figuring out suo moto, whether such passengers, may or may not require some vegetarian meal. A valiant emergency attempt was made by the cabin crew, who prepared a fresh vegetarian meal on board the aircraft itself. The complainants rejected the meal prepared on board by the cabin crew for reasons best known to them. Refreshments were offered to the complainants as a matter of course, some of which they accepted and some of which they rejected as a matter of their own preference. The complainants, were treated with utmost deference, respect, and politeness, and being a successful airline worldwide for very many years, the experienced staff of the OP No.1 has more than sufficient standards of courtesy towards passengers.
13. The O.P.1 also took the legal objection that in accordance with Article 13 which governs the contractual relations between the parties in the given context, the OP No.1 can not be liable for any damages in any manner, in view of the fact that there has been no negligence on part of the OP No.1.
Article 16, apart from making the entire carriage of passengers by air subject to the Warsaw Convention on Carriage by Air, in 16.1(b) clearly states that the carriers liability shall not exceed the amount of proven damages under any circumstances and carrier is not liable for indirect, incidental or consequential damages. OP No.2 & 3 are independent travel agencies who do not issue tickets on behalf of OP No.1.
14. It was further averred by O.P.1 that the purported wait at the Copenhagen airport does not pertain to any deficiency in service or otherwise, but would have been a standard wait between scheduled flights. The complainants demand that the complainant No.3, who held an economy class ticket, should have been accommodated, without any objection, in the Business Class Lounge, was completely misplaced as the Business Class Lounge is meant for business class passengers who pay a greater amount in fare, and an economy class ticket-holder cannot be entitled to the more luxurious facilities of the Business Class Lounge. However, in spite of lack of entitlement of the complainant No.3, to be in the Business Class Lounge, OP No.1, in an exceptional display of courtesy and concern for its passengers, allowed the complainant No.3 to actually be in the Business Class Lounge, as admitted in the complaint itself though it was under no contractual or equitable obligation to allow the complainant No.3 in the Business Class Lounge. Further that OP No.1 is a courteous and comfortable service provider in the airline industry to all its flying customers. The complainants got better service than bargained for, as a result of the complaint No.3 being accommodated in the Business Class Lounge in spite of her lack of entitlement to the same. While vehemently denying the charges of insulting, reckless, insensitive, or indifferent attitude of the crew, OP No.1 has abjured itself from any liability to pay any compensation.
14. On the other hand, while denying any liability or deficiency in service on its part, O.P-2 has contended that there is no cause of action against OP-2 and it has been wrongly impleaded as party to the present complaint as at no point of time, the complainant had any direct dealings with OP-2 and it had only provided the tickets to the OP No.3 as per their request and Complainants had booked their tickets and entire travel plan only through the OP No.3.
16. OP No.3, however, contended that it has been arraigned as a party in the complaint only on the basis that it had issued tickets on behalf of OP. No.1 and, therefore, it cannot be held liable or responsible to compensate the complainants for the alleged deficiency in service on the part of OP No.1. Complainants have not written a single letter to OP No.3 -Jasmine Travels P. Ltd. regarding any deficiency in service and the entire correspondence is between Shri G.L. Sanghi and OP No.1 - Scandinavian Airlines. On this ground it prayed for dismissal of the complaint qua OP No.3.
17. However, in the rejoinder to the written statements the complainants have reiterated their claims and contentions against the O.Ps and further averred that since the complainants had suffered due to the acts of omission and commission on the part of all the O.Ps they are jointly and severally liable. The parties have also filed their affidavits by way of evidence in support of their respective cases.
18. After having accorded careful consideration to the rival claims of the parties, we find that the main allegation of deficiency in service are against OP No.1-Airlines. In our view OP No.1-Airlines alone is liable for the consequences and not the other OPs. First deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. NO.1-Airlines is non-providing of vegetarian meals for the Oslo Newark journey on 06-06-1999 and that even there was no water in the flight even in the toilet and not even for making a cup of coffee or tea for that sector and non-providing of food for 12 hours at a stretch making him suffer pangs of hunger and thirst.
19. O.P-Airlines even did not care to inform or caution the complainant that change of date of booking required fresh registration for vegetarian meals. Even if it was the omission on the part of the travel agent or on the part of the O.P, the O.P. NO.1- Airlines is liable for all consequences being the main service provider and also liable for the acts and omission of its agent through whom they procure business by way of sale of tickets. There was a waiting period of nine hours and merely on the premise that the complainant No.2 had a ticket in economic class, the child was not even allowed to eat in the lounge. Merely because the complainants had booked two tickets in business class and one in economic class for the grandchild does not mean that the minor child should be denied the company of her elders in the lounge. Such an action could have been taken if the passenger had not been a child and been an adult. To keep the child away from the parents and grandparents was an inhuman act and against the human emotional element. Officials of the O.P. Airlines in this regard acted like hardware and not like human beings.
The behaviour of the crew members was also impolite. A handwritten complaint was made by the complainant to the Airlines. There are allegations of highly arrogant and impolite behaviour of the O.Ps crew and staff causing mental injury, humiliation and insult.
20. There are letters of regrets written by the O.P Airlines raising the inference of the allegations of impolite or arrogant behaviour of the crew members being true.
21. The complainant who was a very renowned Senior Advocate of the Supreme Court and a senior citizen has suffered so much of mental agony and humiliation coupled with the inhuman treatment meted out to the child. It makes out a case of grossest kind of deficiency in service.
22. In Ghaziabd Developmetn Authority Vs. Balbir Singh (2004) 5, SCC 65, the Supreme Court has widened the connotation of the word compensation appearing in Consumer Protection Act to such an extent that it takes in its fold each and every element which one suffers on account of the offences mentioned in the Consumer Protection Act namely deficiency in service, sale of defective goods, restrictive trade practice, unfair trade practice etc. etc. The observations made in this regard are very pithy and need to be quoted in full. These are as under:-
The word compensation is of a very wide connotation. It may constitute actual loss or expected loss and may extend to compensation for physical, mental or even emotional suffering, insult or injury or loss. The provisions of the Consumer Protection Act enable a consumer to claim and empower the Commission to redress any injustice done. The Commission or the Forum is entitled to award not only value of goods or services but also to compensate a consumer for injustice suffered by him. The Commission/ Forum must determine that such sufferance is due to malafide or capricious or oppressive act. It can then determine amount for which the authority is liable to compensate the consumer for his sufferance due to misfeasance in public office by the officers. Such compensation is for vindicating the strength of law.
23. Taking over all view of the matter and the agony and harassment suffered by the complainants we deem that a lump sum compensation of Rs. 1 lac besides Rs. 10,000/- as cost of litigation would meet the ends of justice.
24. Payment shall be made within one month from the date of receipt of this order.
25. Complaint is allowed and disposed of in aforesaid terms.
26. Copy of the order, as per statutory requirement, be forwarded to the parties and thereafter the file be consigned to Record Room.
27. Announced on 17th September 2008.
(JUSTICE J.D. KAPOOR) PRESIDENT (RUMNITA MITTAL) MEMBER HK/JJ