National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Bhartiya Sanskriti Sansthan vs Indian Airlines Ltd on 12 September, 2012
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI FIRST APPEAL NO.737 of 2006 (From the Order dated 10.10.2006 in Complaint Case No.C-218/1997 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi) Bhartiya Sanskriti Sansthan, B-1757/9, Shastri Nagar, New Delhi Through Dr. Madhu Barua Chairperson .. Appellant Vs. 1. Indian Airlines Ltd. Commercial Deptt. I.G.I. Airport, Terminal - I, New Delhi 2. Indian Airlines Ltd. Commercial Deptt. 39, Chitranjan Venue, Calcutta ..Respondent AND FIRST APPEAL NO.742 of 2006 (From the Order dated 10.10.2006 in Complaint Case No.C-218/1997 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi) 1. Indian Airlines Ltd. Commercial Deptt. I.G.I. Airport, Terminal - I, New Delhi 2. Indian Airlines Ltd. Commercial Deptt, Airlines House, 39, Chitranjan Venue, Calcutta .. Appellants Vs. Bhartiya Sanskriti Sansthan, B-1757/9, Shastri Nagar, New Delhi Through Dr. Madhu Barua Chairperson .. Respondent BEFORE: - HONBLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK BHAN, PRESIDENT HONBLE MRS. VINEETA RAI, MEMBER For the Appellant in FA No.737/06 : Mr. T.C. Gupta, Advocate & Respondent in FA No. 742/06 For the Respondents in FA No.737/06 : Mr. Ravi Gopal, & Appellants in FA No. 742/06 Advocate PRONOUNCED ON: 12.09.2012 O R D E R
ASHOK BHAN, J., PRESIDENT Complainant as well as Opposite Parties before the State Commission have filed these Appeals against the order and judgment dated 10.10.06 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi (in short, the State Commission) in Complaint Case No. 218/1997 whereby the State Commission while partly allowing the complaint filed by the Bhartiya Sanskriti Sansthan, has directed the Respondent Airlines to pay a lump sum compensation of 50,000/- to the Complainant towards mental agony and harassment.
FACTS:-
The case of the complainant, Bhartiya Sanskriti Sansthan, is that it is a voluntary organization engaged in propagation and promotion of official language Hindi and the diverse culture of India. It organizes various conferences/meetings within and outside the country for the said purpose. It organized a three day Seventh All India Official Language Conference from April 21-24, 1997 at Peerless Resorts, Port Blair, Andaman which was to be inaugurated by the then Lt. Governor and attended by the Chief Secretary, distinguished Parliamentarians and dignitaries of the various organizations. It booked 60 seats for its delegates from Calcutta to Port Blair and back with the Respondent Airlines. Respondent Airlines confirmed 56 seats in CD-285/21 flight of Indian Airlines on 21.4.97 from Calcutta to Port Blair and return from Port Blair to Calcutta by CD-286/24 flight on 24.4.97 vide PNR No. HNY-67 and HEG 97. All the members of the delegation reached at the Calcutta Airport more than one hour before the departure of the flight but the check in staff of the Respondent Airlines available at the Airport permitted only 53 persons to board and the remaining three persons, namely, Dr. Madhu Barua, Chairperson of the Complainant, Dr. Ved Pratap Vedic, Honorary Chairman of the Complainant and Sh. Akshay Sharma, Executive Director of the Complainant were not allowed to check in on the plea that their names were not on the booking list available with them.
Since these three persons were the main functionaries of the Complainant involved in organizing the entire conference, the check in Staff of the Respondent Airlines allowed Dr. Ved Partap Vedick and Dr. Madhu Barua to board and in their places other two passengers, namely, Parvin Kumar Mittal and. Ramesh Sahu were de-boarded. Akshya Sharma was not permitted to board on the flight. Parvin Kumar Mittal and Akshay Sharma travelled to Port Blair on the next available flight on the 3rd day of the conference which was the last day of the conference. The check in staff permitted the group to carry only 100 Kg. of baggage as against the 1000 Kg. of baggage which was permissible to be carried with the group as a result of which certain packages containing shields and gifts to be offered as honour to the distinguished dignitaries attending the conference could not be carried. A notice was sent to the Respondent Airlines on 7.5.99 in response to which Respondent regretted the inconvenience vide letter dated 22.5.97. Complainant, being aggrieved, filed the complaint before the State Commission claiming a sum of Rs.18,00,000/- along with interest towards compensation.
Respondent Airlines, on being served, entered appearance and filed its written statement resisting the complaint, inter-alia, on the grounds; that the Complainants were to travel by IC-285 on 21.4.97 from Calcutta to Port Blair in a group of 49 passengers. The scheduled departure time of the flight was 0530 hours and the Complainants were required to report at the Airport 75 minutes prior to the departure of the Aircraft, i.e., 4.45 hours; that the Complainant group reported at check-in-counter at 0510 hours, i.e., 55 minutes late to their reporting time; that the check-in counter was closed at 5 P.M.; that as a gesture of goodwill, the counter was re-opened for check-in and the flight left 45 minutes late at 0615 hours due to late acceptance of the group; that none of the passengers of the group was denied boarding;
that Dr. V.P. Vedic, Ms. Madhu Baruah and Akshay Sharma did not check in or report at the counter till 0524 hours;
that no group member was de-boarded against the boarding of Dr. V.P. Vedick and Dr. Madhu Barua; that Akshay Sharma did not report at the Airport for check in and he might have postponed his journey; that whatever baggage was produced at the check in counter was booked as registered baggage; that the staff members extended all possible co-operation to accept the group members even by delaying the flight by 45 minutes; that there was no deficiency in service on their part.
State Commission, after considering the facts, pleadings and the evidence led by the parties came to the conclusion that the Respondent Airlines was guilty of deficiency in service on account of providing boarding to Dr. V.P. Vedic and Ms. Madhu Baruah against the de-boarding of Ramesh Sahu and Pravin Mittal from the flight. Once everything was cleared and they were given boarding pass and also allowed to enter the plane there was no reason for the Respondent Airlines to de-board them.
State Commission allowed the complaint and directed the Respondent Airlines to pay a lump sum compensation of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant towards mental agony and harassment by observing thus:-
We have considered the rival claims in their respective perspective. It is not understandable as to why out of 56 delegates only three were initially not allowed boarding. The reason given by the OP was that they had arrived after closure of the counter prima facie appears to be correct. However, one fact which irks us is de-boarding of Sh. Ramesh Sahu and Shri Praveen Mittal which show that they were de-boarded for ulterior reasons.
Once everything was cleared and they were given boarding pass and also allowed to enter the plane there was no reason for the OP to de-board them. Such an act amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service.
As regards Akshay Sharma and Praveen Mittal the possibility of their either having got tickets cancelled or having reached so late that it was not possible for the Aero plane to accommodate them cannot be ruled out. However, in such cases where passengers reach late and the check-in counter is closed it is still the duty of the Airlines to make announcement in respect of vacant seats and make all possible arrangements for boarding of those passengers. Here excuse is being taken that in order to avoid delay in the flight this process was not resorted to.
Giving due weightage to the mental agony and the sufferings by the persons who were de-boarded and could not attend the conference in time may be partly because of their arriving late at the airport but before the departure of the aeroplane coupled with the explanation of the OP in making arrangement for such a large delegation as everyone was coming individually, we deem that lump sum compensation of Rs.50,000/- would meet the ends of justice.
Dis-satisfied with the order passed by the State Commission, Complainant as well as Opposite Parties has filed the separate Appeals. First Appeal No. 737/06 has been filed by the Complainant seeking enhancement of the compensation while the First Appeal No. 742/06 has been filed by the Respondent Airlines for setting aside the order passed by the State Commission.
We have heard the Ld. Counsel for the parties at length.
Ld. Counsel appearing for the Complainant contends that the Respondent Airlines has failed to adduce any evidence to show that 49 passengers of the group of the complainant were booked instead of 56; that check in counter was closed before the arrival of the group of the complainant; that the Complainant have earned a high goodwill in the field of spreading awakening to the use of Indian official language Hindi both within and outside the country but the conference at Port Blair was a big flop because of the harassment suffered by the Complainant, its organizers and highly placed dignitaries at the hands of the staff of the Indian Airlines at the checking counter; that the damage caused to the reputation of the complainant was not restricted to the event of April, 1997 but it continued in future also as the Complainant had to work very hard to convince various authorities about its worthiness; that the Complainant suffered a great loss of reputation because of the non-carriage of shields, gifts and other conference material like kits as such shields and gifts were required to be distributed to various dignitaries attending the conference; that the compensation awarded by the State Commission is inadequate.
On the other hand, Ld. Counsel appearing for the Respondent Airlines submits that the State Commission erred in awarding compensation to the Complainant based on the presumption that two of its members, namely, Ramesh Sahoo and Praveen Mittal were de-boarded for ulterior reasons.
That these members did not check-in or report at the counter till it was kept open upto 0524 hours which resulted in delaying the flight.; that the flight left with TNB 115 with 4 passengers being Gate No Show and the aircraft had a seating capacity of 119 passengers; that the scheduled departure time of the said flight was 0530 hours and as per the rules every passenger has to report at check in counter at least 75 minutes prior to Scheduled departure of the flight, i.e. at 0415 hours. The complainant group reported at check-in counter only at 0510 hours by which time the check in counter was closed at 5 O clock. However, as a gesture of goodwill the Respondents took special interest and re-opened the counter for accepting the group and finally the flight left at 0615 hours resulting in 45 minutes delay.
We find substance in the submissions made by the Ld. Counsel for the Respondent Airlines. State Commission has awarded compensation on the presumption that Ramesh Sahoo and Pravin Mittal were de-boarded by the Respondent Airlines due to some ulterior motive. There was no reason for the Respondent Airlines to de-board these two passengers when as a goodwill gesture it had allowed the other group members of the complainant to board after re-opening the counter. Ramesh Sahoo did not file his affidavit in evidence. He also failed to provide proof of issuance of the boarding pass. State Commission after recording this finding As regards Akshay Sharma and Praveen Mittal the possibility of their either having got tickets cancelled or having reached so late that it was not possible for the Aero plane to accommodate them cannot be ruled out.
has contradicted itself by awarding compensation to the Complainant for de-boarding Akshay Sharma and Pravin Mittal on the ground that even if the check in counter was closed it was still the duty of the Airlines to make announcement in respect of vacant seats and make all possible arrangements for boarding of these passengers. These two findings diametrically oppose each other and are irreconcilable. The seating capacity of the aircraft was 119 seats but it left with TNB 15 with 4 passengers being Gate No Show. Possibility of these passengers not reporting till closure of the check in counter after its re-opening by the Airlines seems to be more probable. As a gesture of goodwill the Respondents took special interest and re-opened the counter for accepting the group members otherwise the group would have been treated as No-show causing forfeiture of the value of all the tickets of the Complainants Group. In these circumstances, there was no reason for the State Commission to dis-believe the version of the Respondent Airlines and award compensation of Rs.50,000/- to the Complainant.
For the reasons stated above, the First Appeal No.742/06 filed by the Respondent Airlines is allowed, impugned order is set aside and complaint is dismissed. Consequently, Appeal filed by the Complainant seeking enhancement of the compensation is also dismissed.
The sum of Rs.35,000/- deposited by the Respondent Airlines as statutory deposit may be released along with accrued interest in its favour by the Registry.
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
.
(ASHOK BHAN J.) PRESIDENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
(VINEETA RAI) MEMBER Yd